Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Trinidad and Tobago) Order 1970 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

HERR WILLI BRANDT

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful if I remind the House that the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Herr Willi Brandt, is being received in the Royal Gallery at 3.45 p.m. today and will be addressing Members of both Houses.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 12th March.

YORKSHIRE DERWENT WATER BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 10th March, at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 12th March.

CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Ordered,

That the adjourned debate on Second Reading of Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill be resumed on Thursday 5th March.—[Mr. Rossi.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Return ordered,

containing an Epitome of the Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts, 1938 to 1969, and of the Treasury Minutes thereon, with an Index for the period 1857–1969.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Rent Control

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many houses are currently subject to rent control legislation; and what proportion these represent of all private rented houses and of the total housing stock, respectively.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell): The number of tenancies in England and Wales at December, 1969, subject to rent control is estimated at rather more than 1,300,000. On the basis of provisional estimates, this is about 40 per cent. of the total of all privately rented tenancies and less than 8 per cent. of the total housing stock.

Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that rent control bears a major responsibility for the continuing scandal of inadequate housing?

Hon. Members: Nonsense!

Mr. Biffen: Can the hon. Gentleman say what proposals he has to break the stranglehold of rent control by facilitating an extension of the fair rent provisions?

Mr. Howell: All the evidence coming to my Department is that rent control is absolutely essential in the interests of large numbers of people who would otherwise be unable to afford decent accommodation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Tories lifted rent control in 1957 things got a hell of a lot worse? Will he see to it that he does not do anything to lift controls?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is quite right. The first thing that this Government did was to repeal the notorious Brooke Rent Act, and the Opposition did not vote against its repeal.

Mr. Graham Page: Is that figure of 1,300,000 the controlled rents compared with the fair rents, or does this include regulated rents? If not, would the Minister break the figure down? Would he like to hazard a guess as to the national total by which controlled rents fell below fair rents and consequently the amount by which we are losing out on repair and maintenance of our national stock of houses?

Mr. Howell: I would require a lot of time to answer all the points in the hon. Gentleman's question. I think there are 1,200,000 rent-regulated tenancies included in the numbers I have given the House.

Council House Subsidies

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is the percentage difference in the cost of building council houses in the South-West and the South-East of England which is taken into account by his Department in assessing eligibility for subsidy; when this percentage difference calculated.

was last changed; and how it is

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The South-West Region qualifies for a 6 per cent. addition to the yardsticks compared with 10 per cent. for the South-

East Region. The regional variations, which were last changed in April, 1969, are based upon a comparative analysis of tender prices.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that this figure does not square with the experience of many local authorities, particularly in Cornwall, which are getting a subsidy of substantially less than 100 per cent. of the cost of supplying new council houses? This is having a catastrophic effect on the rents of new council houses, which very few potential tenants can afford.

Mr. Freeson: I am not quite clear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he suggesting that there is not a difference along the lines I have suggested between the South-West and the South-East? I think that he should check his facts a little more carefully before pursuing this point. On the general level of cost, the yardsticks are the subject of review at the present time.

Council House Loans (Interest)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what was the average rate of interest, after the payment of the Government subsidy, paid by all local authorities in England and Wales on money borrowed for council housebuilding in 1969.

Mr. Freeson: Under the Housing Subsidies Act 1967 the average rate of interest on council house building in 1969 was, in effect, 4 per cent. Additional subsidies for high building and expensive sites were also paid in many cases.

Mr. Pardoe: I thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the extremely high interest rates, does he realise that many councils are having to pay rates substantially higher than 4 per cent?

Mr. Freeson: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has, again, not checked his facts correctly. I said, in effect, that all new house building in 1969 was held at a level of 4 per cent. by way of the subsidy system which we are now operating.

Biggleswade (Sewerage Scheme)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to approve the sewerage


scheme recently submitted by the Biggles-wade Rural District Council in Mid-Bedfordshire.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): An engineering inspector is to visit the area on 10th March to investigate the council's scheme for Arlesey, Stotfold and neighbouring parishes, and I shall give my decision as soon as possible after I receive the report. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the decision letter.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Minister aware that this is at least some cause for welcome in the area? The pollution of this part of the River Ouse is now giving cause for serious concern because of the delay with these essential schemes, and will he try to hurry up the decision?

Mr. Greenwood: Pollution is a matter of great concern, but I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, although we have been in discussion with the council for some considerable time, we had the last piece of information from it only on 9th February, and the fixing of the meeting with the inspector has taken place as quickly as possible after that.

Tendering

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the results achieved by Circular 79 of 1967 advising local authorities on the shortcomings of open tendering.

Mr. Freeson: There has been a marked reduction in open competitive tendering since selective tendering was commended to authorities in 1964, and this has continued since the issue of Circular 79/67. By the second quarter of 1969 the proportion of dwellings covered by schemes placed in open competition was only 12·7 per cent.

Mr. Boyden: Will my hon. Friend say how many local authorities are inhibited by their standing orders from undertaking tenders not in open competition?

Mr. Freeson: That information is not available to me, but I hope that the influence of the circular will continue and that the local authorities which are not operating this policy will increasingly switch over to what we have commended to them.

Local Housing Authorities (Cost-effectiveness)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will publish statistics on the relative cost-effectiveness of the local authorities in building council houses.

Mr. Freeson: Complete information on relative cost-effectiveness as between local housing authorities is not available. But local authorities can get some measure of their performance by comparing their tender prices with the regional housing cost yardsticks.

Mr. Boyden: Will my hon. Friend's Department do something about the particularly expensive house building by local authorities?

Mr. Freeson: One difficulty relates to the time span experienced by local authorities in getting major contracts completed, as many of the schemes are much larger than those undertaken by firms constructing houses for owner-occupation. Our regional officers are pursuing this matter regularly with local authorities. If my hon. Friend has particular cases which he would like to put to us, we shall be glad to investigate them.

Mortgage Repayments

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT for each of the last 10 years the monthly repayments required for an 80 per cent. mortgage taken out for an average-priced new house in each year, allowing for changes in mortgage interest rates during this period.

Mr. Freeson: I will, with permission, list the table of figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Speed: I am grateful to the Minister, but is not it a fact that a man who is earning an average industrial wage cannot qualify for such a building society mortgage because of record high prices and interest rates?

Mr. Freeson: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong on this score. Although I am unable to quote exact figures, there has been a considerable increase in the rate of owner-occupation in recent years.

Mr. John Fraser: Will the Minister publish, with those figures, comparative figures for European countries? Will not those figures show that the relative interest rates in Great Britain compared with other countries have been lower under the Labour Government than under Tory Governments?

Mr. Freeson: That is perfectly correct. Whatever difficulties we are experiencing here, and there are undoubted difficulties, the figures extant in this country compare favourably, to a degree, with those in other countries. What is more, the rate of reduction in the house-building programmes in other countries has been much greater than in this country during the past year.

Following is the information:





Monthly repayments on 80 per cent. advance over 25 years



Interest Rate
Purchase Price£
Gross
Net of Tax Relief*


Year
 per cent.
approx.
£
s.
£
s.


1959
5½
2,430
12
2
9
8


1960
6
2,555
13
6
10
5


1961
6½
2,810
15
7
11
14


1962
6½
3,005
16
8
12
10


1963
6
3,195
16
13
12
16


1964
6
3,433
17
18
13
15


1965
6¾
3,768
21
1
15
13


1966
7⅛
4,030
23
6
17
3


1967
7⅛
4,283
24
16
18
5


1968
7⅝
4,499
27
4
19
17


1969
8½
4,775
31
2
22
8


* Tax relief has been computed for the first year of the mortgage based on earned income taxed at the standard rate.

Council Houses (Sales)

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many council houses have been sold in each of the past three years.

Mr. Greenwood: The numbers of council houses sold in the past three years are as follows:

1967,
…
…
…
3, 200


1968
…
…
…
8,571


1969
…
…
…
7,521

Mr. Speed: How does the Minister equate the restriction on council house sales with the Government's avowed intention of giving more responsibility to local authorities?

Mr. Greenwood: This is a matter which involves national policies, and we have throughout made it quite clear that the discretion we want local authorities

to operate must be subject to over-riding national considerations. We have the very strongest policy objections, as a Government, to paying out subsidy on houses which will then be disposed of.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that many of his hon. Friends feel that the figures which he has given are far too high, especially in relation to the sale of council houses in areas of great housing need such as Liverpool and Birmingham? Should not the Government act vigorously to ensure that there should be no sale of council houses in areas where there is a great need for houses?

Mr. Greenwood: The figures are certainly higher than I would want. On the other hand, there are cases where it is justifiable on pure management grounds for there to be a disposal of council houses. It would be quite wrong to place on the Department the too heavy administrative burden which would be placed upon it if we took the powers asked for by my hon. Friend. But I am sympathetic to his point of view.

Housing Finance

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the progress of the review of housing finance that his Department is undertaking.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will announce the result of his Departmental inquiries into housing finance.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the progress of his current review of housing finance.

Mr. Greenwood: The comprehensive review of housing finance has reached an advanced stage, but it will be some time before it is completed.

Mr. Walker: Before completion of the review, will the Minister make a statement about local authorities such as Birmingham which, on houses built in 1967 and 1968, rather than being subsidised down to 4 per cent. rate of interest, are now paying more than 6 per cent. rate of interest?

Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentlemen's facts are right, this is no doubt a matter which can be pursued in one of our numerous debates on this subject. I think it will be better to see what the review of housing finance says before I anticipate what action I am likely to take in the light of that review.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the review give special consideration to local authorities which have a large number of loans to convert, which will inevitably involve them in heavy financial burdens?

Mr. Greenwood: This is a very great problem, and I think that the review will deal with it adequately.

Rent Schemes

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many rent schemes proposed by local authorities were rejected by him between July 1968 and December 1969; and how many of these schemes that were rejected contained proposals involving an average rent increase of less than 7s. 6d. per week.

Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend rejected 229 proposals for rent increases, 205 of which involved average increases of less than 7s. 6d. a week.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the Minister tell us, first, whether any of these applications came from the City of Liverpool and, secondly, why he considers it necessary to interfere in the attempts of democratically-elected local authorities to balance their housing accounts?

Mr. Howell: None of the rejected applications involved the City of Liverpool. It is quite clear from the debate on the Rent (Control of Increases) Bill that it is still necessary to stop some local authorities which do not need to make rent increases from doing so.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Hull the Tory council is putting up the rents of old-age pensioners from 25s. to nearly £4 for a single. bedroomed house? Is he able to do anything about that?

Mr. Howell: If the circumstances are as my hon. Friend suggests, an application would certainly have to come before my right hon. Friend, and it would be unlikely to be acceptable.

Birmingham Overspill

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when an announcement will be made on the outcome of the public inquiry into Birmingham's overspill proposals.

Mr. Denis Howell: The proposals of the Birmingham City Council were called in by my right hon. Friend on 11th February 1969, and the public local inquiry into nearly 600 objections was completed in November. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the inspector's report in April. Whilst he fully appreciates the need for an early decision on these important proposals, it is equally important that they should receive the detailed consideration they deserve.

Mr. Dance: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware of the anxiety of many of my constituents in North Worcestershire about these proposals? I hope that a decision will be reached fairly soon.

Mr. Howell: We shall certainly bear all that in mind, but the hon. Gentleman would want us to reach the right decision and have time to do so.

Housing Programme

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a further statement on the house-building programme for 1970.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his revised estimate of the number of new dwellings to be built during 1970.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a further statement on the 1970 house-building programme.

Mr. Greenwood: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 3rd February to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and Harborough (Mr. Farr)—[Vol. 795, c. 200–2.]

Mr. Morrison: Is there any truth in the reports that the Government are


about to introduce a 100 per cent. mortgage scheme as advocated by this side of the House for the last three years?

Mr. Greenwood: Local authorities for a long time have had the power to introduce 100 per cent. mortgages, and the Housing Act 1967 further helped them in that direction.

Mr. Allaun: Are the Government now considering restoring the full £195 million a year loans to local authorities to grant mortgages? Surely they could be afforded now, since they are Government loans, not grants?

Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his tribute to Government progress in restoring the economy of the country. However, we ought to wait a little longer before making any announcement about the extension of a new loans scheme, although I would like to do so.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the decline in the number of approvals recently given for local authority housing.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied with the number of new houses started during January 1970; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is concerned over the decline in the level of local authority housing contracts and starts. I am visiting 20 or more priority area authorities to press for increased building, slum clearance and general improvement area programmes.

Mr. Morrison: What increases in the cost of local authority land for housing have occurred over the last two years?

Mr. Freeson: I could not give the figure offhand, but there has been considerable help by Government to local authorities which have to buy land at high cost by way of expensive site sub-stales. Therefore, there is no reason why local authorities which are having to pay market prices for land should hold back on house building. They are being assisted to a greater level than ever before by Government subsidy.

Mr. Roebuck: Could my hon. Friend say whether he has had any success in

persuading Conservative-controlled local authorities to ignore the advice given to them by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) to the effect that they ought not to build council houses for all sorts of seemingly good purposes? In particular, will he see whether he can bring the Conservative-controlled Borough of Harrow to a better understanding of its responsibilities? Is he aware that the council put out no tenders for house building in 1969?

Mr. Freeson: I am aware that the Harrow Council did not put out any tenders during 1969. So far I regret to say it has refused to meet me to discuss the housing situation in Harrow. I regret to say that there are still far too many councils among those I have visited, as well as others, which are unnecessarily and quite wrongly cutting back on their house building programme no doubt encouraged by spokesmen, and indeed leading spokesmen, on the other side of the House.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the misquotation that both he and the Prime Minister have used I made it perfectly clear that we want many more council houses built for good social purposes? But what we also want is that existing tenants of council houses should be allowed to buy them.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman cannot wriggle out of this one. He has stated on a number of occasions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Walker: Quote me.

Mr. Freeson: I will—that there should be a curb on council house building, and I am quoting. The hon. Gentleman and other Members on the other side of the House have been busy in this place and in other places seeking to discourage local authorities from building houses. They cannot have it both ways. Are we to have from them a call for a reduction by half in council house building, as was our experience under the Conservative Government, at the same time as they were calling for an increased slum clearance programme?

Planning and Development (Compensation)

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about the progress


he has made in his consideration of the memorandum submitted to him by the Chartered Land Societies on the question of the provision of compensation in planning and development cases.

Mr. Denis Howell: I refer the hon. Member to what I said during the debate on the Second Reading of the Planning Blight and Worsenment Bill on Friday, 27th February.

Mr. Lane: While the modest steps announced on Friday are welcome, will the hon. Gentleman remember the many thousands of individuals who are suffering mental anxiety and financial hardship because of compensation problems? Will he pursue this matter with high priority so that the Government may make an announcement about further steps in weeks rather than months?

Mr. Howell: I do not think I can add anything only four days after a major whole-day debate on this matter in the House in which I was told by the Opposition that I took too long in stating the Government's policy.

Surplus Houses

Mr. Rossi: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his latest estimate of the number of surplus houses which will be available by 1973.

Mr. Greenwood: The overall numerical surplus of houses over households in 1973 is still expected to be of the order of 1 million, but I cannot stress too emphatically that this surplus will not be evenly spread throughout the country and that shortages and bad housing, as I have repeatedly said, will persist in some areas.

Mr. Rossi: Is there any connection between the answer the Minister has just given and the fact that he has declinied to accept from me a Question about the number of homeless families? Is he washing his hands of the plight of homeless families by saying that it is the responsibility of another Department?

Mr. Greenwood: That is a most unworthy remark. The Question was transferred because in the terms in which it was drafted it was considered to be more appropriately a matter within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that the Conservative Party in Liverpool says that there will be a surplus of council houses by 1972, but that at the same time the Conservative Party, both in Liverpool and in the country as a whole, is saying that the Government's housing policy has failed? Would my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that we could not possibly have a surplus by 1972, and that the Conservatives are using this as an excuse not to go ahead with a proper building programme of council houses in an area like Liverpool which badly needs them?

Mr. Greenwood: Certainly in conurbations like Merseyside shortage and bad housing will continue for some time to come, even though slum clearance is being carried out. One can only deduce from the fact that so many Conservative authorities are stopping their housing programmes that they regard the problem in their areas as already solved.

Publicly-owned Land (Sale to Private Developers)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the sale by local authorities of publicly-owned land purchased for council housing to private developers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend's consent is already required if the land was purchased compulsorily and not subsequently appropriated or is being offered for sale at less than market value. Local authorities wishing to sell lend should act in accordance with circulars 48 of 1959 and 57 of 1966, and, in particular, they must satisfy themselves that the land is, in fact, surplus to requirements. Apart from these considerations, decisions to put forward proposals for land acquisition or disposal must be taken by a local authority having regard to local needs. It would not be appropriate for such decisions to be subject to further Government scrutiny.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that a particular plot of land in my constituency was bought out of revenue by a Labour council and that a Tory Government refused to give permission to this far-seeing measure designed


to meet housing needs in that city? Is it not a deplorable state of affairs that the Tory council is now cutting down on the building of houses needed for slum clearance?

Mr. Howell: I am not aware of that, and if the facts are as stated I would have a great deal of sympathy. It is a matter that should be decided at the polls.

Sir G. Nabarro: But would the hon. Gentleman turn the coin on the other side and deprecate local authorities which remain gorged with unwanted land that they hang on to indefinitely?

Mr. Howell: There is very little evidence that that is occurring in our great conurbations where there are tremendous housing needs.

Kingston-upon-Hull (Rent Rebate Scheme)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what guidance his Department gave to the Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation in introducing its proposed rents rebate scheme.

Mr. Denis Howell: The corporation, along with other local authorities, was given general advice in Circular 46/67, which set out the principles on which sound rent rebate schemes might be based.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that this new rent rebate scheme introduced by a Tory council is associated with one of the most vicious increases in rents introduced by any Tory council in the country? It will have a terrible effect on the low-wage-earning community and its effects will also be felt in industrial relations and wage demands. Will my hon. Friend look at cases of housing being subject to reletting?

Mr. Howell: If it is as vicious as my hon. Friend says, it will have to come to us for approval and it would be wrong for me to say anything about the matter now. But I emphasise, as I said on the previous Question, that all these undesirable trends should be dealt with at the local elections and should be clearly stated by my hon. Friends in Hull.

Public Parks, London

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has now received proposals from the Greater London Council for the allocation of public parks between the Greater London Council and the London borough councils.

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, Sir. A scheme was submitted by the Greater London Council last October, and I am now considering it.

Mr. Moyle: Would my right hon Friend bear in mind during his considerations that there is no general desire on the part of inhabitants of London to have their public parks mucked around with by the Greater London Council, and also that employees' negotiating machinery and excellent training schemes should be maintained for the future.

Mr. Greenwood: I have received many representations from a wide-based section of the population, including sports organisations, trade unions and other bodies representing workers involved in this matter. I think that my hon. Friend will realise that until I have had discussions with the G.L.C. and the London boroughs it is difficult to make any pronouncement.

Mr. Peter Walker: Can the Minister indicate how long he expects the consultations to take and when he anticipates being able to make an announcement?

Mr. Greenwood: This is a complicated problem, and we have not yet started discussions. But I realise the need for as rapid a decision as is consistent with the proper handling of it in order to remove the uncertainty which is hanging over the people employed.

Common Land (Registration)

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made with the registration of land under the Commons Registration Act 1965.

Mr. Denis Howell: On 2nd January, 1970, when the period for applications expired, over 13,700 areas in England and Wales had been registered as common or green and there were over 2,100


outstanding applications for registration of land. Some authorities need further time to deal with the outstanding applications. My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales accordingly propose to make regulations extending until 31st July, 1970, the period within which registrations may be made.

Mr. Lyon: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what percentage of the total known area of common land these figures represent? If there is a considerable percentage left where no application has been made, will it not be a serious matter and should not some attempt be made to extend the advertising about it?

Mr. Howell: It is impossible to give the percentage. We are confident that in the additional time now being allowed all the registrations that we or the authorities have under consideration can be effectively made.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Minister agree that it is a complicated matter and that there are many people who should register property who do not understand the procedures? During the extended period, on which I congratulate him, will he do his utmost to make certain that the regulations and the procedures are understood by those who should register, as they are not understood in a large part of the rural area?

Mr. Howell: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and to my hon. Friend for drawing this matter to our attention. I will have it examined and take action, if necessary.

Conservation Areas

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make a statement on the Government's policy towards the studies in conservation of the four towns, particularly Lord Esher's report on York.

Mr. Greenwood: The conservation reports on York, Bath, Chichester and Chester have been studied by the Preservation Policy Group, under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Kennet. The group is now preparing its report. I hope to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of celebrating Conservation Year would be to make a small amount available to each of these four cities as a trial experiment in the conservation of historic centres? Will he confer with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning and also with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that the announcement, when it is made, is highly favourable?

Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend will realise that I share his close personal interest in York. I do not think that these problems could be in better hands than those of the Preservation Policy Group. I have no doubt that my noble Friend, Lord Kennet, and his colleagues will have in mind the various financial considerations to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

Coastal Oil Pollution

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made recently in setting up machinery for dealing with coastal pollution by oil; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Greenwood: As was said on 18th November in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), there is now a series of interlocking schemes of organisation round the coast to deal with beach pollution. Some local authorities have been reviewing their schemes in the light of detailed suggestions we sent to them last August. Another recent development is an arrangement by which oil companies can take the lead in dealing with pollution arising from a spillage of their products.

Mrs. Short: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that the destruction of one of our most precious resources —the coastline—and the effect that oil pollution is having on plants and animal habitats should be dealt with most stringently? While welcoming also what he said about local authorities, may I ask whether he thinks that much tougher steps should be taken to prevent the discharge of oil into the sea in the first place?

Mr. Greenwood: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that one of the most important things is to have the right machinery for dealing with oil pollution when it occurs. There has been a substantial improvement over the last year. However, I agree about the importance of this matter, and I hope that hon. Members will study the report published a day or two ago by the Countryside Commission on the need for protecting the coastline.

Sir S. McAdden: Will the Minister tell us whatever happened to the interesting suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southend, East about a reward of £1,000 being offered for information leading to the discovery of those who are guilty of dumping oil in coastal waters, which was promised careful consideration?

Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. Gentleman will send me the £1,000 I will be responsible for the advertisement.

Committee on Sewage Disposal

Mr. Wellbeloved: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on Sewage Disposal.

Mr. Greenwood: I understand that the working party is considering a draft for signature, and I hope to receive its report in a few weeks' time.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the report does not deal with the specific problem of London sewage disposal, it will cause grave anxiety? Is he further aware that the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council has plans in my constituency to deposit sewage sludge on open land within 300 yards of the Thamesmead housing development? This is quite outrageous. Will my right hon. Friend do something about it?

Mr. Greenwood: I should certainly be surprised if the report did not deal with the subject of pollution of the River Thames.
I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), who has been chairing this working party, which has worked extremely quickly and thoroughly. I believe that the report will

be most valuable and will, I think please my hon. Friend.

Mr. Chataway: Even before receiving the report, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing Circular 64/68, which has done so much to inhibit anti-pollution measures in rivers?

Mr. Greenwood: I could not possibly do that at this stage. It is wiser to wait for the report. Various considerations are involved. It would be unwise now to give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning what progress is being made towards setting up a national body to co-ordinate efforts to control pollution of the environment.

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will now announce the names of the Chairman and members of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning when he hopes to complete his negotiations for setting up a national body to co-ordinate efforts to control pollution of the environment.

The Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning (Mr. Anthony Crosland): As far as outside advice is concerned, I would refer my hon. Friends to the Prime Minister's announcement on 17th February of the membership of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The commission held its first meeting on 25th February. As far as co-ordination by the Government is concerned, good progress is being made with the creation of a central unit responsible directly to me.

Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by the time that the Royal


Commission reports, let alone by the time that any recommendations that it makes may be enacted, thousands of tons of pollution will have been deposited on the country? Can we be assured that there will be quick action on this?

Mr. Crosland: Certainly we shall not wait for the Royal Commission to report before taking action. Action is going on continuously, as evidenced by the recent developments in terms of oil pollution, pesticides, organochlorines, and so on. My hon. Friend need have no fear that all action will await a report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Atkinson: s: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the people appointed to serve on the Royal Commission are most distinguished but that if we are to find a solution to most pollution problems it will be found in engineering? In view of that, will he have another look at the composition of the Royal Commission with a view to appointing two further members from the ranks of our most eminent engineers?

Mr. Crosland: My hon. Friend has made a most interesting and important suggestion. I will take it into account very carefully when I come to consider either additions to or changes in the membership of the commission.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a fact that we are the first modern State to attempt a co-ordinated attack on the problem and that, therefore, the Government are to be congratulated on their initiative? As for the Royal Commission, is there not a case for having at least someone under 40 on it, and certainly a woman?

Mr. Crosland: I considered with the greatest possible care the question of a young man, possibly like my hon. Friend, the question of a woman, the question of an additional Welshman, the question of a Co-operator, and all the questions which are familiar to any Minister who has to appoint a commission. At the end of the day, I think that we have an extremely good commission.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that this is almost the first country, despite all the excellent, but piecemeal and fragmented work which has gone on, which has set up machinery to enable it to take an overall co-ordinated view.

Mr. Chataway: The Minister will be aware that the United States appointed such central machinery some time ago. Can he say how many scientific advisers, male or female, he has appointed so far to his Central Anti-Pollution Unit?

Mr. Crosland: The Central Anti Pollution Unit is now in course of being built up. I would not like to give a figure at this moment as people are being taken on continuously.
As for the United States, I must make it clear that, whatever the machinery, this country has been far in advance of the United States in almost every antipollution activity.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if, in view of the effect of air pollution on weather and climate, he will arrange for the Meteorological Office to publish the results of its research into this matter to date; and if he will ensure that it is laid before the Royal Commission on Environment.

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. The results of current research by the Meteorological Office on these matters will be published in the normal way and will be available to the Royal Commission.

Northern Economic Planning Council (Letter)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning whether the Northern Economic Planning Council has now received a reply from the Sunderland County Borough Council to the council's letter of 10th December, 1969; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State (Mr. T. W. Urwin): Yes, Sir, and there are to be detailed discussions between the planning council and the county borough council of joint action to stimulate local interest in industrial training.

Mr. Willey: While I welcome the progress being made, can my hon. Friend say whether a date has been fixed for an exhibition and whether he has taken any steps to encourage the co-operation of industrialists and trade unionists in this way?

Mr. Urwin: There is no date yet fixed. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the helpful suggestion which he made on 3rd February concerning the participation of employers and trade unionists will be taken into account by the officials arranging these discussions.

Regional Economic Planning Councils

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning if he will strengthen the regional economic planning councils to enable them to prepare more comprehensive development plans for their regions.

Mr. Crosland: As the White Paper on Local Government Reform in England made clear, I want to enable the economic planning councils, in co-operation with local government, now to carry their work forward towards the development of firmer regional plans, and I have already started discussions to this end. I do not think that it would be practicable or desirable to change the basic composition of the councils at the present time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real need for more staff to get on with the detailed work which it is necessary to have more than the perhaps valuable outline plans that we have had so far?

Mr. Crosland: I agree with the basic objective, which is one of great urgency. I have already discussed it with the chairmen of all the councils, and I propose now to discuss it with the local authority associations to try to advance the matter rapidly.

Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that the Northern Economic Planning Council is in difficulty at the moment because it does not have a chairman? Is he taking any action to appoint a new chairman to the council?

Mr. Crosland: I have asked the deputy chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council to act as chairman, and I know that he will prove to be an extremely effective chairman during this period.

Education (Metropolitan Authorities)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and

Regional Planning whether he will publish the evidence which has led him to allocate responsibility for primary and secondary education to the upper-tier metropolitan authorities.

Mr. Crosland: The Government took this decision on their own judgment of the merits, after weighing all the relevant arguments. The decision has been widely welcomed in the education world.

Mr. Brooks: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it has not been universally welcomed and that the metropolitan districts which are now to lose this all-important function, contrary to the intentions of Seebohm and Maud, in many cases are larger than some States represented at the United Nations. If he presses ahead with his proposal, may I inform him that many of us in Wirral may be tempted to declare U.D.I.?

Mr. Crosland: That is a declaration which will gravely alarm both sides of the House. But, as to the substance as opposed to the sinister threats in my hon. Friend's question, I agree that it has not been universally welcomed. I chose my words carefully in saying that it had been widely welcomed in the education world—by the N.U.T., for instance. I think it is fair to say that it has been welcomed by most hon. Members in this House who have an interest in education matters. As for my hon. Friend's point about the implications for the size of the metropolitan districts, his next Question has a bearing on that.

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning whether, in the light of his decision to make education the responsibility of metropolitan regional authorities, he will agree to divide the proposed South Merseyside Metropolitan District into two separate units.

Mr. Crosland: I can assure my hon. Friend that, unless U.D.I. is declared by this time, our consultations with local authorities on metropolitan districts will cover the pattern as well as detailed boundaries. I shall not reach a final conclusion on South Merseyside until these consultations are complete.

Mr. Brooks: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the flexibility which he


clearly envisages, will he recall that Mr. Senior has referred specifically to this area as one now meriting division? This is an urgent matter, in view of the need to know the future structure in the light of the implementation of the Seebohm Report.

Mr. Crosland: Yes, Sir. But when we discuss metropolitan districts we have to remember that, even though they will not now be education authorities, they will remain housing authorities and social services authorities. They must be of a size to carry out those functions effectively. Nevertheless, I do not rule out what my hon. Friend suggests in advance of the consultations.

HEADS OF COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENTS (MEETINGS)

Ql. Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for future meetings with Heads of Commonwealth Governments.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Commonwealth Secretary-General announced last Saturday that the next Meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government would be held in Singapore in January, 1971.

Mr. Marten: While greatly welcoming the news and also wishing the conference every success, may I ask the Prime Minister to emphasise at that meeting that Britain would deplore any steps which would weaken the threads which bind the Commonwealth together, particularly in our negotiations to get into the Common Market and also in our defence responsibilities with the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that the Common Market will be fully discussed, as indeed has happened on past occasions.
Concerning defence policies, there has been a productive Commonwealth conference since the Government's decision on east of Suez, and I cannot recall very much in the way of any Commonwealth view against the Government's policy.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that, so far as our information enables us to judge, some of the Commonwealth countries are bound

to be at a disadvantage if we decide to enter the Common Market. Will my right hon. Friend let us have another White Paper on that subject?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will recall that these matters were raised and dealt with in the debate on the Common Market last week. He will also be aware of what we have said about vital Commonwealth interests in the White Paper governing the basis on which we shall approach these negotiations.
My right hon. Friend will further be aware that some Commonwealth countries in both East and West Africa have been making their own association with the Common Market in terms which have meant reverse preferences for Britain.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Prime Minister seriously consider extending an invitation to representatives of Wales and Scotland to attend the next Commonwealth Conference in readiness for the day when those nations will be among the free and equal nations of the Commonwealth?

The Prime Minister: The Government of the United Kingdom will provide better representation for Wales and Scotland than the hon. Gentleman and his party.

DENMARK (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Denmark.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so at present, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Has my right hon. Friend had any contact with the Prime Minister of Denmark on the issue of sea fishing of the Atlantic salmon, on which some of us have had harsh words to say about friends? If he has, may I ask whether any replies have been sent?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As has already appeared in the Press here and in Denmark, I have sent a personal message on the subject raised by my hon. Friend to the Danish Prime Minister, to the Swedish Prime Minister, and to the


Federal German Chancellor. We have also had regular consultations with Denmark, Sweden and Germany at official level. I have just had a reply from the Danish Prime Minister, which I am considering. I believe that it will be possible to work something out.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As the large majority of the members of the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission have agreed to a ban, will the Government pursue this firmly with Denmark and also at every opportunity take it up with West Germany, because both these countries do not have salmon rivers?

The Prime Minister: This point has been made by me to the three Prime Ministers concerned. I am hoping for further discussions with the Danish Prime Minister to see whether a solution can be reached. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, because of his reference to the other countries, that Iceland supports us in this matter. The matter will be pursued vigorously with all the Governments concerned.

RHODESIA

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister what communication he has received from President Nixon regarding the effect of sanctions against Rhodesia on United States imports of chrome; and what reply he has sent.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has it not been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention that the United States does not see why it should go on importing this strategic material either from the U.S.S.R. or from Rhodesia through third countries?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be a spokesman for the United States, but my dealings are with President Nixon. As I said in answer to his Question, President Nixon did not draw this to my attention, whatever the hon. Gentleman wants to do on behalf of President Nixon's country.

Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend give the Africans of Zimbabwe, for whom he is still responsible, an assurance that Smith and his cronies will be held personally responsible, during the liberation

struggle which will continue, until it is successful, for the deaths of any freedom-fighters after capture?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said on the situation following the purported establishment of a republic in Rhodesia.

Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the Question, may we hope that the American Government, as a permanent member of the Security Council, will take the view that principles do not decrease in value because they are expensive? Would he agree that, if Lord Salisbury can remove official support from the illegal régime, anybody can?

The Prime Minister: I should be very surprised if the United States Government, as loyal members of the United Nations, flew in the face of a United Nations resolution of this kind. I note what has been said about the noble Lord, Lord Salisbury, but, obviously, his example is not being universally followed in this House, and we are still waiting for a condemnation from the Opposition Front Bench of what has happened. —[Interruption.]

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Question No. 4.

Hon. Members: Wake up.

The Prime Minister: It is not this Front Bench who need to be woken up. I would say to hon. Gentlemen—

Mr. Faulds: A disgraceful performance by the Leader of the Opposition. He has not got the guts of Salisbury. And that is not saying much.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must not advertise the fact every time that he is here.

Mr. Roebuck: On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, my hon. Friend was trying to advertise the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is here, and that he is failing in his duty.

N.A.T.O.(NUCLEAR PLANNING GROUP)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he had recently in Washington about the Nuclear Planning Group in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reports already given to the House on my visit to Washington. Both Governments are in full agreement on the valuable rôle in the Alliance played by the Nuclear Planning Group.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: What nuclear weapons have we now which are not assigned to N.A.T.O.?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my Answer last week on this Question, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will no doubt take an opportunity, if not more than one, in the defence debate planned for this week to deal with certain misrepresentations that occurred.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If N.A.T.O. were the first to use an atom bomb, would it not be likely to prove a suicide weapon? Is it not likely that the Russians, instead of being deterred, would retaliate similarly, or even escalate to the use of hydrogen bombs?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will recognise that that is an entirely hypothetical question. He will know that these matters are dealt with in the Defence White Paper which the House will be debating for two days this week, and that my right hon. Friend is perfectly competent to deal with the kinds of anxiety which are in my hon. Friend's mind.

HUMBERSIDE (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Humberside area during the present Session of Parliament.

The Prime Minister: I hope to do so again, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful and welcome answer, but would he also bear in mind, in remembering the affection shown him last week by his Liverpool and Bootle colleagues, that he is always welcome in Hull? But would he note that our unemployment is a little above that of Liverpool? Would he especially look at our difficulties in this respect when he does come?

The Prime Minister: I have to interpret Humberside not only as Hull but also as South Humberside, which I visited recently. It is because of anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members for these constituencies and our own studies of the matter that we have scheduled this area as an intermediate area. The Act under which this was done came into force only a few days ago. My hon. Friend will also know of the various recommendations in the Humberside Report which have been accepted by the Government and have been put into effect.

Mr. Tapsell: What has happened to the Humber Bridge which we were promised just before the last General Election?

The Prime Minister: If he followed this more carefully, the hon. Gentleman would know that the Government have announced that we intend to go ahead with the construction of the Humber Bridge.

AIRCRAFT NOISE (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Prime Minister whether he will transfer responsibility for dealing with noise nuisance caused by aircraft from the Board of Trade to the Department of Health and Social Security.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to what I said at Question Time on 17th February—[Vol. 796, c. 204–5.]

Mr. Bell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread feeling that the Department of Health would be more single-minded in its pursuit of noise abatement than the Board of Trade, which is also responsible for the promotion of aviation? Is it not inevitable that for the Board of Trade noise abatement must always be a subsidiary consideration?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that that is a fair commentary on the activities of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I have thought a great deal about this. It is right that the Department responsible


for civil aviation should have the main responsibility here. It has a duty—as the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend is considering what steps should now be taken—to make regulations about noise. In addition to the President of the Board of Trade, of course, the Minister of Technology is responsible for the experiments being carried out, some of which I have seen in progress at the Pyestock Research Establishment, for cutting down the noise of aero-engines in the process of manufacture.

INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if he will submit further proposals to the National Economic Development Council to increase industrial investment.

The Prime Minister: Recommendations relating to industrial investment from the Economic Development Committees involved in the industrial consultations on "The Task Ahead" are currently being examined.

Mr. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the very favourable forecasts in Government documents and by the Institute of Economics will encourage industrialists to invest even more and that there will be a fair distribution of increased wealth between industrial investment and personal consumption?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, expenditure on manufacturing investment in the second and third quarters of 1969 was 12 per cent. higher in real terms than in the corresponding quarters of 1968, and the latest inquiry conducted by the Department concerned shows a continuation of this trend.

Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the failure to achieve a much higher rate of industrial investment is serious for the future economy of the country, and that the White Paper on Public Expenditure was particularly disappointing and weak in this respect?

The Prime Minister: The problem of inadequate industrial investment compared to some of our industrial competitors has been a continuing problem of this country for some 15 years, and

probably more. That is why I welcome the fact that there are now signs of a pick-up in industrial investment, which is already running at record levels. We shall do all we can to encourage this improvement in investment, particularly in the basic manufacturing industries.

Mr. David Howell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Minister of Technology and the President of the Board of Trade undertook last February to begin a study of the effectiveness of investment incentives? Has he seen Press reports that now, apparently, this will not be finished until the summer? Will he ask these Ministers to get a move on on this very important subject?

The Prime Minister: This is continuing, and, of course, these matters have been discussed with industry through the medium of the N.E.D.C.s for particular industries, as I said in my main Answer. But I thought that the hon. Gentleman's own party was now committed to dropping investment grants altogether.

NORTH-EAST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish the text of his letter to the North-East Development Council refusing their request to meet him, and the date the reply was sent.

The Prime Minister: With the agreement of the council, the letter sent to it on my behalf on 19th February has been published, and a copy is available in the Library.

Dame Irene Ward: Why, when my Question was on the Order Paper, did the right hon. Gentleman release the document to the Press this morning between 11 and 11.30? Is this not a gross abuse of the traditions of the House?

The Prime Minister: Studying the Question put by the hon. Gentleman—

Dame Irene Ward: Hon. Lady.

The Prime Minister: I profoundly apologise.
Studying the Question, as I did, put down by the hon. Lady, I thought that I


did exactly what she was asking me in the Question to do.

Dame Irene Ward: rose

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, when I hope that the Prime Minister will be present to reply.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the early giving of notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment cuts out another hon. Member's supplementary question.

HEATHROW AIRPORT (DISPUTE)

Mr. Corfield (by Private Notice): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the current position at Heathrow Airport.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): The unofficial strike of firemen continues. The British Airports Authority has made temporary arrangements to maintain fire service to meet the safety requirements for the airport.
I understand that the Authority has told the Transport and General Workers' Union, whose members the firemen are, that the Authority is ready to discuss the firemen's claims as a matter of urgency through any of the agreed procedures available.
Talks are in progress between the Authority and the union, and the Department of Employment and Productivity is in touch with both parties.

Mr. Corfield: Will the temporary arrangements enable Heathrow to stay open throughout 24 hours? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, in the face of the possibility of short-notice diversions occurring, that all safety precautions can be maintained? Can he say to where these diversions will be made and, in particular, whether Gatwick and Stansted are in a position to take diverted aircraft?

Mr. Roberts: The three questions asked by the hon. Gentleman are

extremely important. First, I understand that the temporary arrangements apply to 12 hours during day time; the fire officers who are now standing by for emergency service must have rest periods.
Secondly, the diversions are to Manchester, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted. The position varies as between these four airports. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to go into detail on this aspect I will, but, for the moment, diversion is being effectively carried through.
Thirdly, I am assured that the safety aspect is well taken care of.

Mr. Lipton: To what extent is there a wide gap between the parties to the dispute? Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to ensure that whatever discussions occur they will not be spread over days and possibly weeks?

Mr. Roberts: I can certainly give that assurance. The Department of Employment and Productivity has been in touch with the T.U.C. which, in turn, has been in touch with the union concerned. Every effort is being made now and will be made in future to secure that this most unfortunate and wasteful dispute is resolved as quickly as possible.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that whenever diversions occur wide publicity is given to the fact on radio and television, for the convenience of the public? Would he agree that this disgraceful piece of anarchy is the worst advertisement in the world in Britain's shop window?

Mr. Roberts: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about radio announcements. It is important that the travelling public is kept as fully as possible in the picture of available facilities.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he would not expect me to join him in that sort of language at this time.

Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the continuing bad industrial relations within the British Airports Authority, is my right hon. Friend prepared to order an immediate investigation into why this is the case?

Mr. Roberts: I could not accept that the position is as my hon. Friend described it, and, therefore, I do not see the need at present for such an investigation.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this latest example of a minority striking to the adverse result of our national prosperity is just one more example to which Lord Stokes drew attention in the motor industry and the whole of industrial relations? Is it not time that the Government rethought their entire attitude towards improved industrial relations and immediately brought forward legislation, as they promised a year ago, that they would do?

Mr. Roberts: Important though these matters are, they go rather wide of the Question and of my Department's responsibilities.

Mr. Dalyell: As one who was diverted on the midnight's plane last night from Edinburgh to Birmingham, rather than to Luton, may I offer B.E.A. congratulations on the slickness and efficiency of its arrangements at a time of some crisis for B.E.A.?

Mr. Roberts: I will take special steps to see that B.E.A. is made aware of my hon. Friend's congratulations.

Mr. Lubbock: Is it not a fact that this dispute is only one of very many that are taking place at Heathrow Airport? Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore reconsider the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) in the light of the study that has been taking place during the past year into the question of disputes? What steps are now being taken by the union to convey to the men on unofficial strike the offer of urgent discussions? What action can the right hon. Gentleman take in the long term to improve communications between the union and the officers and men it is supposed to be serving?

Mr. Roberts: Those points are more appropriately dealt with by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. I have no doubt that she will take full note of what has been said by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) on this subject.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that some of the exaggerated statements that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite do not help at this time? Is my right hon. Friend aware that strikes of this

kind are by no means confined to Heathrow Airport, but occur throughout the world in the various aircraft industries? For example, is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon Members who attend the Council of Europe are often held up because of Air France strikes, which regularly take place in France, and that this has nothing whatever to do with the British working man?

Mr. Roberts: The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question was a statement of fact. The answer to the first part is that I very willingly echo the hope that nothing will be said to make the discussions which are now going on more difficult than they are.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Has the Minister seen a statement made by the firemen's representative to the effect that fire, officers are not competent to deal with complicated fire fighting equipment? Would he comment on whether or not that is true?

Mr. Roberts: I will only comment to the extent of saying that there is absolutely no foundation for that statement, it it was made.

Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly that made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who was a mouthpiece for B.A.L.P.A. during the pilots' trouble, represent an entirely different attitude from that being taken by the firemen at the airport? Is my right hon. Friend aware of our hope that normal industrial negotiations will resolve this dispute, and that it is no good blaming the pilots or the firemen on this issue?

Mr. Roberts: Those matters also range into the sphere which is dealt with by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. I am bound to say that our first objective should be to see that this dispute, like every other, is dealt with by normal constitutional methods.

Mr. Ouslow: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how much per hour this strike is costing the nation?

Mr. Roberts: Not without notice.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If my right hon. Friend should be considering the suggestion of hon Gentlemen opposite that


there should be a ballot before a strike takes place, would he at the same time consider the desirability of having a ballot before company directors go to horse race meetings, which they do every day, and on the golf course, which is exactly the same sort of thing?

Mr. Roberts: Again, these are matters which range far beyond my Departmental responsibilities. I have no doubt that in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow my hon. Friend's comments will be read with varying degrees of interest by various people.

Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend agree that disputes of this sort, whether they involve pilots, firemen or possibly in the future even air traffic controllers, cause great inconvenience and great potential danger? Since it is over 12 months since the Commission on Industrial Relations was set up to look into the problems of collective bargaining, would he agree that this is the sort of urgent matter which it could ideally explore?

Mr. Roberts: I think that the whole House would very strongly support what my hon. Friend has said about inconvenience to the public and the need to use available procedures to settle problems of this kind.

SCOTLAND (TEACHING COUNCIL ORDER)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I must ask the indulgence of the House to make a statement about the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1965 (Amendment of Constitution of the Council) Order, 1969, which has just been laid before the House. This Order extended the period of office of the existing General Teaching Council for Scotland from four years to four years and six months.
I informed the House on 6th March, 1969, that I proposed to make the Order so as to give time for the completion of the review of the constitution and functions of the council that I was putting in hand.
I made the Order on 21st April, 1969, and it came into operation on 30th April.
It was made under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act, 1965, and, by virtue of Section 14(2) of that Act read in conjunction with Sections 4(1) and 5(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, it should have been laid before both Houses of Parliament after it was made and before it came into operation.
It has recently been discovered that the requirement to lay the Order in that way was not complied with. I am advised that the failure to lay the Order did not prevent it from having full legal effect from the date of coming into operation specified in the Order. Failure to lay at the proper time was, however, a serious matter and I ask the House to accept my apologies for it.
Hon. Members may recall that in November, 1967, following a recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure in that year, this House resolved that all Statutory Instruments should be submitted to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments whether or not they were required to be laid before the House. This Instrument was accordingly sent to the Select Committee on 9th May.
The failure to lay the Instrument was noticed when my Department was preparing the further Order required to give effect to the decisions regarding the constitution and functions of the council that I announced on 21st January. I shall shortly be making this further Order and laying it before both Houses.
I should make it clear that it is, of course, open to hon. Members to put down a Motion in the usual way for the annulment of the Order made in April, 1969, which, as I have said, has today been laid before the House.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: We on this side of the House of course accept the Secretary of State's apology, while agreeing that this is a serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman made clear that this discourtesy to the House was not intended. Is it not surprising, however, that this should have been overlooked, since the subject of the Teaching Council has been continuously before the Government over the past two years?

Mr. Ross: I entirely agree and I regret that this matter was overlooked. It is one of those things. There are so many


hurdles which should have prevented this that it is surprising it was overlooked from start to finish. I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) asked a Question on 27th June about it and it was not even spotted then.

Mr. Grimond: While, of course, we all accept the Secretary of State's apology, may I ask him to clear up two points? I understand that he was bound to lay the Order under Statute, yet he said that it did not affect its legal standing. Does this mean that the legal effect of Orders is irrelevant, or that reconsideration by the House is irrelevant to the legal effect of Orders?
The right hon. Gentleman also suggests that the House can still annul the Order, but has not the time in which we could annul it come to an end, and what would be the effect if we did?

Mr. Ross: I have laid the Order. The original Teaching Council would have gone on until 31st January, 1970, but the House extended it for six months to allow for the election of the new council following the reorganisation I had put in hand as long as about a year ago.
On the question about the legality of the Order, the view has been taken by the Law Officers, both when the Bill which became the Statutory Instruments Act was before the House and subsequently, that it was not the intention that the laying of an Order should be a condition precedent to its coming into operation; and the present Lord Advocate shares that view.
Of course, from the point of view of the House, by not doing this I denied an opportunity for hon. Members to pray against the Order. That is the serious part. It so happens that this was something which generally the House was agreed about, but I thought it only right to apologise to the House.

Mr. Dalyell: Since no one has taken the trouble to object, surely no harm was done?

Mr. Ross: It is not a case of harm being done. This is in the Statute and we should comply with it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: While we all accept the Secretary of State's explanation, is it not necessary that the question

of the legality of the Order should be looked into rather further? As the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, we have had no opportunity to pray against this Order and there are some aspects of this problem which are highly contentious. It seems unsatisfactory that although we did not have an opportunity to pray against it, the Order should have carried legality, none the less.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not pursue his inquiries. That would have been helpful, but we will now have an opportunity to pray against the further Order which I shall bring in, relating to the reconstitution of the council.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that according to Erskine May the last time that this happened was at a time of grave national crisis in 1944, in respect of fire Orders made in 1941? On that occasion an indemnity Bill had to be put before the House to indemnify the Secretary of State against the consequences.
Erskine May says:
The subsequent indemnity Act saved the Secretary of State from the consequences of the failure to lay and deemed the Regulations to have been laid but did not purport to declare their validity.'
Does this rule not completely conflict with the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has been given by the Lord Advocate?

Mr. Ross: I can only give the hon. Member and the House the advice given by the Law Officers at the time when the principal Act on which the laying depends—the Statutory Instruments Act —was going through the House and the further advice received from the Lord Advocate in respect of this case.
The hon. Member referred to one particular case, but there have been a number of cases from 1941, in 1962 and 1963. The way in which they were dealt with generally related to the circumstances of each particular case.

Mr. Dewar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ability of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for making a molehill into a mountain passeth all understanding?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that that is fair. If I construed it as a molehill, I would not have been here making this statement today.

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING (SCOTLAND)

3.47 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I beg to Move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to carry out certain of the recommendations in the report of the Hunter Committee to assist in the development of fishing in Scotland.
The House will remember that it was as long ago as 12th March, 1962, that the Hunter Committee was set up by the last Conservative Government with a wide remit to review the law relating to salmon and trout fisheries in Scotland. The committee produced an interim report on the subject of drift-net fishing for salmon in the sea on 10th June, 1963, and produced its final report on 24th May, 1965. This was the result of over 50 meetings covering 66 days of work, and ran in all to 109 pages, which have been generally agreed to be a most useful and thorough review of the subject resulting in a considerable number of detailed recommendations.
It is now very nearly five years since the publication of that report and over eight years since the Hunter Committee was set up. Over the past two years there has been growing anxiety among those concerned with the need to develop fishing in Scotland at the absence of any action, or even any clear statement of intention, from the Government on this matter. It is in an attempt to meet at least some of this concern which comes from anglers' clubs, tourist interests and private owners that I am asking leave today to introduce my Bill.
Everyone will agree that the subject is most complicated. There are those who believe sincerely that nothing whatever can or should be done until a complete change of all aspects of fishing has been drawn up and agreed. I can well see the force of this, but I submit that to wait for all the technical experiments which will be needed to form a sensible solution to the problems of fishing as a whole and salmon fishing in particular will be to wait for several more years; and these are years which we cannot afford to waste at a time when leisure for us all is in such need of development and when the true potential of tourism is so greatly hampered by the inadequacy of the law.
As I am so well aware of the difficulties, the measures which I shall propose in the Bill are only a very small first step. I do not propose that the fishing of salmon or migratory trout shall be in any way affected. Nor would I propose to bring in any measures affecting rivers, as I think that these must await a fuller implementation of the Hunter Report as a whole. Nor would I propose to include any of the area covered by the River Tweed Commissioners, as they have already introduced by other means their own arrangements, which, I understand, are working satisfactorily.
I propose to confine the proposals in the Bill, which is a difficult matter for a private Member to introduce, to fishing in fresh water lochs which are fairly easy to define. There are approximately 10,000 such lochs in Scotland, according to the best information I can find. Although by no means all of these are suitable for stocking with brown trout, very many of them are.
The problem at present is that in most cases it simply is not practicable to stock and manage such fisheries properly, because the law does not allow adequate protection for the resultant fishing by those who have contributed in some way towards the proper costs of management. This is particularly inhibiting to anglers' clubs which wish to develop such fishing for the benefit of all their members and also to people and organisations who genuinely wish to develop such fishing for the tourist trade, which is a vital earner of foreign currency and which is crying out for expansion.
I shall, therefore, propose in the Bill the setting up of a Scottish anglers' trust, as suggested in paragraph 117 of the Hunter Report but on a smaller scale, to deal only at present with the development of brown trout fishing in fresh water lochs. The trust would be a sort of co-operative of anglers and would be able to register, on request by the owners or tenants, a loch, provided that it was properly managed and that it was properly open for fishing, by members in the case of an angling club, or by the public on some reasonable form of payment in other cases. A loch thus registered would then be entitled to protection by law against unauthorised fishing by those who had not in anyway contributed


to the upkeeping of the fishing. Registration would not be granted unless these conditions were met.
Anyone who has studied the Hunter Report will agree that these proposals are modest in the extreme and cannot be a substitute for implementation of the report as a whole in due course.
Nor am I in any way inflexible as to the suggestions I would make in the Bill. I should be glad to co-operate in any alterations which may be suggested either by the Government or by the Opposition. I ask only that we do not allow the complete delay that we have had on any action of any kind for so long to continue indefinitely into the future. In saying this, I am certain that I speak for the vast majority of those interested in fishing in Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Younger, Mr. Hector Monro, Mr. BruceGardyne, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, Mr. John Brewis, and Mr. Edward M. Taylor.

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING (SCOTLAND)

Bill to carry out certain of the recommendations in the report of the Hunter Committee to assist in the development of fishing in Scotland, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 1st May and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Orders of the Day — FISHING VESSELS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.55 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am particularly happy to introduce the Bill, because I am certain that it fills an important gap in our safety legislation. I believe that both sides of the industry will welcome the Bill and recognise its necessity.
Deep-sea trawling is generally known to be a hazardous occupation, but it is not always realised just how great the risks are. Calculations for accidents at work among fishermen aged 15–64 in England and Wales over a four-year period showed that they were more at risk than the average male worker by a factor of no less than 17 times. This was five times higher than the degree of risk even in coal mining.
That bald comparison needs little embellishing to emphasise the importance of the Bill. Moreover, the calculation which I have mentioned related to all fishermen including those in the inshore fleet, so that the degree of risk for those serving on deep-sea trawlers is probably even higher. No doubt fishing will continue to be dangerous, whatever we do, but an accident rate as high as this must be reduced.
There was a time when the accident rate was appallingly high in merchant shipping generally, but, starting in the 19th century, successive Governments have been active in raising safety standards. There is now a large body of safety legislation in and under the Merchant Shipping Acts. Because of the international nature of merchant shipping, these standards have been embodied in a series of international conventions, in which the United Kingdom has taken a lead, and, especially since the formation of the Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, just over 10 years ago, the pace of international work on marine safety has been high. The present casualty rate of the British merchant


fleet is, indeed, now one of the lowest in the world.
It is rather a paradox that we should be talking today about fishing, which is one of the most dangerous occupations in Britain, when we have one of the safest merchant fleets in the world. That contrast shows what can be done by government action and government drive.
Understandably, because the merchant fleet is engaged in international voyages, this work has concentrated largely on improving standards on first passenger vessels and then, in the 1960 convention and the legislation which has followed it, also cargo ships. Now it is time to put a corresponding degree of effort into the safety of fishing vessels.
A number of disasters have occurred to emphasise the dangers to which especially the distant water fishermen are exposed. In 1953, for example, three trawlers were overwhelmed within a month of each other. In 1955, the "Lorella" and the "Roderigo" capsized off Iceland on the same day. In 1965, the "Blue Crusader" and the "Boston Pioneer" were lost within a month.
That disaster occurred when I was Minister of State, with responsibility for shipping. I shall never forget the position which it put me in, as the Minister answerable to the public for safety, when I found that we lacked even the powers to introduce the safety regulations that might have averted such losses.
As Minister responsible for shipping and safety at sea, I always see the national picture—not just Aberdeen, Lowestoft, Grimsby, or Hull. I am deeply aware of all the accidents and not just the fears and anxieties in one port, especially after an accident. I read all accident reports and consider the causes, such as instability, fire on board and freak waves in force 10 gales, clawing a trawler down to the depths of the ocean, smashing it to smithereens, vessel and men never to be seen again. Many of these reports remain imprinted on my mind. No one will ever fully realise their impact.
Hon. Members will no doubt remember my experience of going to sea overnight in a small trawler and being caught in a force 8 gale. The vessel was the "Ross Tern". I witnessed the fight back home for six hours as the vessel ploughed back to the quieter waters of the Humber.
Standing on the bridge with the late skipper, Mr. Charles Hodson, I saw holes in the sea like vast set pots, and as we sank into them gigantic waves swept over the vessel. All the time, racing through my mind were the many reports of instability, freak waves and vessels lost at sea. It was a most frightening experience, which I shall never forget, and it has strongly endeared the fishermen of our islands to me.
At the beginning of 1968 came the loss of three Hull trawlers within less than one month. My predecessor lost no time in setting up a committee of inquiry under Admiral Sir Deric Holland-Martin to examine the major factors affecting the safety of deep sea trawlers and their crews, and to make recommendations. In only 14 months the committee made an admirable job of this task, which was daunting in the range of topics to be considered.
The committee's report was printed and published last July. It included no fewer than 83 recommendations dealing not only with the structure of fishing vessels and their equipment, but also with such matters as fatigue, working conditions, conditions of employment, and management, all of which were shown to have a bearing on safety.
The recommendations are of varying importance, of course, but there is no one area that can be singled out as providing the key to safety. The committee emphasised the need to act on all its recommendations if a reasonable standard was to be achieved.
Immediately upon publication, my predecessor announced that the Government accepted the report in principle, subject to consultation with the industry as to its detailed implementation and financing. We are anxious to put it into effect as fast as is reasonably practicable. Immediately after publication of the report consultation with the industry began, and is still continuing. Responsibility for implementation is divided between the two sides of industry, on the one hand, and the Government, on the other. There are some matters which could be put into effect without delay, and I am glad to say that the industry has wasted no time in getting on with its own negotiations and introducing the improvements recommended.
We, too, are making progress with carrying out those recommendations which lie within our existing powers, and the House will know that we have already again stationed a fishery support ship off Iceland this winter. However, many of the recommendations addressed to the Government require not only detailed and lengthy discussions with the industry over the formulation of regulations, but also the provision of the necessary powers for the Board of Trade.
Fortunately, the Merchant Shipping Bill was already before the House, and we have taken the opportunity of introducing provisions there which will enable us to implement six of the Holland-Martin recommendations, relating to hours of work at sea, certification of trawler officers and accident reporting. Only last week a new Clause was approved in Committee which will give powers to implement the recommendations relating to safe working practices on board. It is also our intention to introduce a new Clause extending the Government's powers to require the carriage of radio installations on the lines of the Holland-Martin recommendations. As these provisions apply to merchant shipping vessels generally, it was thought appropriate that they should be included in that Bill.
The Bill before us now will give us the rest of the powers that we need and will enable us to implement six other Holland-Martin recommendations. Clause 1 will enable us to make rules covering four important aspects of the construction of trawlers that were dealt with in the report.
First, on stability, standards for new trawlers will be based on stability criteria drawn up by I.M.C.O. and, as far as possible, we shall seek to apply the same standards to existing ships. This may be a difficult matter, where substantial modification is needed, and we are in the middle of a programme of tests to find out the stability characteristics of all the vessels in the deep-sea fleet.
Second, rules will be made on weather-tight integrity similar to those contained in the Load Line Rules, 1968, for merchant ships, giving statutory force to the Code 1 of the Recommended Code of Safety of Fishermen on Trawlers which

was prepared by a committee under Board of Trade chairmanship only last year.
Third, rules on hull strength will be largely based on the standards set by the Classification Societies. And, fourth, rules will be made for structural fire protection, a matter of particular importance in view of several serious fires which have occurred on modern freezer trawlers in recent years. Here again. there may be difficulty in applying the desirable standards to existing ships.
Under Clause 2, the Board of Trade proposes to make rules whereby those vessels to which the rules are applicable would be subjected to annual survey or inspection. In addition to structural safety, these surveys will also cover lifesaving appliances and radio, for which rules applicable to fishing vessels already exist. Wherever practicable and appropriate surveys will be delegated to Classification Societies, and this will substantially ease the load of additional work for the Board of Trade's professional staff.
To enforce the survey requirements, fishing vessels will be required by Clause 4 to hold appropriate certificates issued under Clause 3. The Holland-Martin Report recommended a single fishing vessel certificate covering all the principal aspects of the ship's safety, but it may prove more convenient to have separate certificates for construction, life- saving appliances and radio.
In issuing certificates it will be possible under Clause 1(2) to exempt a vessel from any safety requirements and to impose conditions for doing so. This will probably be necessary for those vessels which cannot be brought up to the I.M.C.O. stability standards very quickly.
An important feature of the Bill is that under Clause 1(1) different rules can be made for different classes of vessel, and under Clause 11(4) rules for different descriptions of vessel may be brought into force at different times. The point of this is that the same rules would not be appropriate for all kinds of fishing vessels, nor can we expect to solve all the many problems in devising appropriate rules simultaneously. We shall have to have certain priorities.
The Holland-Martin Report related specifically only to deep-sea fishing


vessels, but it would be a mistake not to consider also the very much larger fleet of inshore fishing vessels, whose crews share many of the risks involved in deep-sea fishing. For this reason, the Bill applies to all fishing vessels, but our intention is to make rules in the first place for vessels covered by the Holland-Martin recommendations.
The rest of the Bill needs little explanation. I would mention only that Clauses 1, 4 and 5 contain penalities for contravening the rules, for going to sea without the appropriate certificates and for altering vessels for which certificates have been issued without notifying the Board of Trade. Clause 6 contains the power to prescribe fees, in particular, in regard to surveys, certificates and exemptions.
I am well aware that the full implementation of all the Holland-Martin recommendations will entail considerable cost. Preliminary discussions are being held with the industry to try to clarify what the nature and extent of the costs are likely to be, so that decisions can later be made as to how they should be shared. There will be close consultations on this question with my right hon. Friends the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as with the industry.
As hon. Members will realise, the Bill is a vital first step. It is an essential enabling Measure, and the regulations that we shall make under it will deal with some of the most important matters in the Holland-Martin Report.
Formulation of these rules is a major task, but we are pressing on quickly in consultation with the industry. Together with the relevant clauses in the Merchant Shipping Bill, this is a vital part of the joint effort that we are undertaking with the industry to improve safety standards in fishing, and I believe that the intention of the Bill will be applauded on all sides.
This Bill is concerned with the vital subject of safety at sea. In British merchant shipping, we have progressed from a state of affairs in the last century when our safety record was bad, through Government intervention and efforts by both sides of the shipping industry to our present position in which the safety

record of British merchant ships is one of the best in the world.
There have been many milestones on the way: international safety conventions in which the United Kingdom played the lead, and the building up during the last few years of the international structure of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation.
The state of affairs in the fishing industry, and, in particular, the deep-sea fishing industry, has, however, been different and much less satisfactory. There has been little regulation while our attention was concentrated on merchant ships. There are now about 18,000 men who serve on fishing vessels, of whom approximately 7,500 serve on the distant water fleets. Between 1958 and 1967, there were 208 deaths on deep-sea trawlers, and less than half of these were due to casualties to the ships themselves. Accidents to individual fishermen were at least an equally serious cause of death.
It is time to put this state of affairs right. We have had the valuable Holland-Martin Report, and we are now proceeding in various ways to implement the recommendations. In the Merchant Shipping Bill we are taking the powers which are needed to regulate the manning question, and the prevention of accidents on board ship, where at present there is a gap in what the Government can require.
The Bill which we are considering today is concerned, on the other hand, with the structure and equipment of the trawlers themselves. Here, too, we must take powers to lay down proper standards and see that these are maintained. This will be a very considerable task, but I know that in this effort we shall have the willing help of both sides of the fishing industry. The Bill represents a very great step forward, therefore, in safeguarding safety at sea, and I commend it to the House.
In conclusion, as an ex-mineworker and one who has had experience of a dangerous occupation, now having responsibility for making the regulations that will determine the degree of safety at sea, I believe that we in this House should all humbly remember that in the remoteness of this Chamber and the type of life we lead it is rate that we personally share the grief and sorrow of major accidents and


tragedies. Because of that, it makes it all the more important that we collectively apply our minds to making the lives of those who earn our wealth in these dangerous occupations much safer and, at the same time, lessen the grief and heartaches among our people.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Like the President of the Board of Trade, we warmly welcome the Bill. It is a curious thing that when the House is dealing with ships both sides seem closer together than on almost any other occasions, certainly much closer than when we are dealing with aircraft, a subject which seems to divide rather than unite the House.
I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Opposition, of thanking Admiral Sir Deric Holland-Martin and his colleagues for their fascinating report which, to a layman such as myself, is very clearly written. I thought, for example, that the committee, in dealing in paragraph 83 with the difficult problem of stability, expressed itself in four lines in a way that was a revelation. It said:
Stability is a property which the designer can put into a ship in any required quantity; if the quantity is deficient the ship may capsize in extreme weather, if it is excessive the ship will probably be unnecessarily large and expensive, difficult to operate and stiff and uncomfortable in her movements.
That, in a nutshell, sums up the dilemma and the width of the bracket in dealing with the matter. I do not think that I have ever heard a difficult problem more concisely and succinctly expressed.
There is one sentence in the report which I would not commend. It is about the only one and it comes in paragraph 99, when the committee is talking of the difficult problem of getting about trawlers:
We recommend that an investigation be made into the ergonomics of human locomotion in an oscillating and slippery environment…
I was tempted to draw from that parallels from the modern political scene, but I thought, in view of the love feast between the two sides of the House on this topic, that it would be dangerous to do so.
The Bill is very thin in weight because all the serious matters are to be dealt

with under regulations, in the modern way; and I make no complaint about that. We have, of course, no idea what the regulations are to be except from the brief remarks of the Minister. It is for consideration whether there should not be written into the Bill, as was done in the Merchant Shipping Bill, a statutory obligation to consult. I am sure that that will happen, but it is just as well to make it quite clear beyond doubt.
It is customary, on a Bill of this kind, for the Opposition to say that while welcoming it they will examine it very closely in Committee, line by line. I do not think that it would be honest to say that of this Bill, because there is very little to examine. The examination will take place when we get the regulations. That is the important stage. One thing I might say to the right hon. Gentleman on that is that I noticed that the regulations under Clause 7 of the Bill are to be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
I understand the reason for that. I here will be many. This House cannot clutter itself with affirmative Resolution procedure under every Bill, because if it did so it would grind to a halt. But the affirmative procedure gives the House very much greater control m the way of amendment. If I may repeat what I said in Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill, under the negative procedure regulations are very often brought into force before the House has a chance to discuss them; whereas under the affirmative procedure regulations are brought in in draft and, therefore, in practice, there is an opportunity of amending them; not technically, but in practice. The Government can more easily withdraw the draft and make it again in amended form. Under the negative procedure it is often impossible for the Government to do so.
I want it to be clear that I am not asking that all these regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure, because that would be asking too much. But I am asking, first, that there should be a statutory obligation to consult and, secondly, that regulations should come before the House before they are put into force. I dare say that it will not be necessary in a great majority of cases to pray against them. But if it is necessary we want to have a feeling of reality about it, and to know that the regulations can


be withdrawn and relaid, if the House so feels, without loss of face on the part of the Government or without loss of administrative convenience. That is all I want to say about the machinery of the Bill. It is important, because the Bill is purely an enabling Measure.
The rest of what I have to say is mainly a series of questions. I begin with stability. In paragraph 87, the Holland-Martin Report suggests that further investigation by the Board of Trade should be made as to the extent to which the existing fleet fails to measure up to the I.M.C.O. standards. That is a very difficult question. Has the Board made the investigation? If so, what is the result? The problem is very difficult and will be very expensive to remedy. According to paragraph 96, structural strength seems to have been generally satisfactory.
What has happened about the recommendation relating to survival clothing? We all remember that, in one of the disasters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, one man's life was saved because he was wearing survival clothing. The court of inquiry attributed his survival to that fact. It is a matter of great importance and I hope that we shall have some information about it, and about any further studies on the dreaded problem of ice accretion.
The report reads very solemnly en the question of ice accretion. It comes generally to the conclusion that nothing much can be done about it except for the skippers to run for it, if I may use that expression, at an early stage. Although the report makes recommendations, it concludes that these must, in a sense, be marginal and that, when the dreaded ice begins to form, the only thing that can be done is to get out of the area. Therefore, of course, the fleet will depend increasingly, I believe, upon the protection vessel which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I wonder whether we could have more information about how the "Orsino" is faring—I think that it is still called the "Orsino". Other countries, particularly the Federal Republic of Germany, have many more vessels than we have, and I wonder what the Board of Trade's plans are to get our protection a little higher up the international league and more nearly the equivalent of the German basis.
Indeed, is there any hope, as we move into the European Economic Community, of getting this matter of protection vessels on an international basis? Is seems desirable that that should be done in Europe. I hope that efforts are being made to achieve it. I am sure that it would be much less expensive if ancient rivalries could somehow be sunk. It would be to the advantage of all.
My other questions relate to cost. The report, although it has a chapter on the matter, is vague on the subject. It was fairly specific on that part of the new code of safety which we are not dealing with in the Bill—that is to say, dealing with the human factor, which will be dealt with by regulations under the new Merchant Shipping Bill. But, as far as the physical environment is concerned—the ship and its equipment—we are very much in the dark, and, of course, it is of paramount importance. At present, the modern subsidy to this fleet runs to about £4 million per annum and I have seen it suggested that the cost of implementation of these proposals will be perhaps as much as that. Therefore, if most of the cost is to fall upon the industry, the whole benefit of the subsidy—and it has been of great benefit—will be cut down.
I know that it is impossible to quantify exactly, but may we know what the Board of Trade thinks will be the cost to the industry of the measures proposed in the regulations and how it sees the cost split between the Government and the industry? If it cannot be done, then it cannot be, but it is a matter of enormous importance, because this is an industry in competition with many other countries and cost is, therefore, of the essence.
I share all the words the right hon. Gentleman so movingly uttered about the drama and tragedy and importance of the fishermen who go out particularly into the middle and further waters. The risk is alarming still—17 times above the average, broadly speaking. But it is also true to say that less than half of the deaths at any rate are due to the matters we are discussing in the Bill. Most are due to human negligence and disregard of things which should be regarded. This is responsible for far more accidents.
That does not mean to say that the matters in this Bill are not important,


because the causation is twofold. It is easier to be negligent, and more understandable to be negligent, if one has bad equipment than if one has good, and, therefore, if we provide good equipment and good ships the chances of negligence itself are much reduced. For that reason, among others, although recognising that the human factor is more important than the physical, the physical factor is by no means to be despised.
The Opposition give the Bill a warm and speedy passage.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Like my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, whose eloquent and moving speech I enjoyed, I warmly welcome the Bill. I go further. As a back bencher representing a fishing port, I feel privileged, as we all are, to play a small part in legislation which will make the lives of these intrepid and at times fearless men more comfortable in dangerous Arctic waters.
This is an enabling Bill, but on the Statute Book it will give a cutting edge to the Board of Trade and enable it, through statutory regulations, to carry things which, in the past, we have desired to get, but which were left to voluntary means and activity. I am sure that the Bill will pass quickly to the Statute Book. In a way, it is a twin of the Merchant Shipping Bill—at least, it is complementary to it—for there are many Schedules in that Bill which appertain to fishermen's lives. Such is the deep concern of the House that I believe we shall quickly get the Bill through Parliament.
I want to say without much ado that I echo what my right hon. Friend said about statistics of casualties and accidents to deep-sea fishermen. He is of coal mining stock, like myself, but deep-sea fishing has a much higher incidence of casualties than coal mining has, despite the popular view of city dwellers. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) talked about the human factor, and it is not unimportant, despite the improved ships which we hope will be built in future.
I was in my constituency at the weekend talking to a fisherman who is now 70 and who spent many years at sea. He said to me, "Of course, we are a race apart.

Our psychology is geared to monetary incentives and our take back pay is based upon a percentage of the catch". So, amidst all the hardships and dangers at sea they are inclined to take chances—particularly young skippers who have their way to make in the future with their owners—and even in icing conditions the Holland-Martin Report says that they will wait for "just one more haul". Therefore, it behoves us, as was said by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen, to give our men the best possible ships that we can.
The Merchant Shipping Bill has been mentioned. There were many hon. Gentlemen who compared the vessels, and, even more so, would compare the fishing vessels that we are talking about today, with floating factories. We must make every effort to try to get conditions on our floating factories on the water as near as possible to those in the factories on shore; and this is what we are attempting to do in the Bill.
We must beware of making the Holland-Martin Report into a bible, but there is no doubt that in at least one respect it is a bible for fishermen, and for legislators, too. It says, in paragraph 123:
Unlike most merchant ships, a trawler (even an old-fashioned side trawler) may be regarded as a small floating factory on which men are employed to process fish on large modern freezers, where the handling and processing of the catch is relatively complex, the analogy is even more appropriate. It is somewhat illogical that employees in factories should be protected at work by legal regulations on the design and operation of machinery when no similar requirements exist for the protection of trawler men at sea.
This is the object of the Bill, and it indicates the new approach of many hon. Members who have been talking this way in another Committee.
I now deal with the parts of the Bill which, in my view, are vitally important. Clause 1 is paramount. I want to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). Soon after the 1964 election he came to Hull and at that time some people may have thought that his mind was, if not obsessed, at least certainly fixed on this matter of safety. He came to the fish dock and the words which were always on his lips were "stability and design", but particularly "stability". Following that visit, many hon. Members on this side of the


House went to the National Physical Laboratory, at Teddington, and saw a fascinating experiment about size, shape, design and dimension of vessels, and particularly about stability. Later, there came our shattering disasters in Hull in 1968.
I firmly believe that it is the Minister's intention—and it should be—that the Board of Trade must and will seek statutory powers to lay down stability standards for all new trawlers. The position is not quite so simple with the older trawlers, but there are standards laid down by I.M.C.O. Since all our own vessels are built with 40 per cent. of Government money and all are vetted by the White Fish Authority, we can easily obtain these standards in the new vessels.
I have yet to meet a fisherman who does not believe that stern fishing is safer than side trawling. This is absolutely clear; there can be no discussion about it. I have met no one who denied this—certainly not in the case of freezers. In wet fishers one vessel, the "C. S. Forester", of Hull, is not only a magnificent vessel, but has almost cracked all records for value of catch as well. It is a convincing success both to the owners and to the fishermen themselves.
What of existing vessels and their stability? It was not easy to do, but an investigation was made into the loss of the two vessels, the "Ross Cleveland" and the "Kingston Peridot", and I am informed that both were below I M.C.O. standards. As I understand, at the moment an investigation is taking place at Government expense into all vessels in service. I believe that this exercise should be sharpened up. The quicker we can get this work done the better. This is the view of most people in the industry to whom I have spoken.
It is imperative for the Government to take powers immediately, to forbid the use of all trawlers below standard. We owe it to our men to do that, and I never wish to hear again the 19th century words used to me sometimes during January, 1968—the "floating coffin". I add, in fairness to the Hull firms in my constituency, that even without legislation all the Hull trawlers have been insured by the mutual insurance companies and were inspected. The Holland-Martin Report is very fair about these matters.
The Minister mentioned what, to me, is a sinister feature of recent years—the serious fires that have occurred upon our trawlers. I am thinking about the "St. Finbar" off Labrador in 1966. Although we had an official inquiry into the loss of that vessel, local opinion showed scepticism about the findings. It would be contentious to use the words which have been used on the dock and elsewhere about "whitewashing". Again, to be fair, I must say that the Holland-Martin Report does state again that Hull firms have done good work on a voluntary basis in the matter of making their ships safer for dealing with the danger of fires on board. But we still need measures—and the Bill will provide them—on the Statute Book to tighten up our standards.
Clause 3 of the Bill deals with fishing vessel certificates and Clause 4 says that no boat can go to sea without those certificates of safety and seaworthiness. I can confirm from my own experience in the Fisheries Committee of the Council of Europe that the West Germans have these conditions. Those of us who have been lucky enough to go aboard German vessels and the protection vessel "Frithjof"—and I am as jealous as anyone of my own fishing fleet and my own people here—will know that the quicker we have conditions like those throughout our fishing fleet the better it will be for our men in the industry.
Earlier, I heard the hon. and learned Member for Darwen talking about international help on the seas to give assistance to vessels in times of difficulty. It is my understanding that this is obtained. There is no walk of life and no field of economic activity where one has more camaraderie and more genuine association—except perhaps in mining than amongst seamen on the sea itself—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? This has become a bit too much. We have teachers here lobbying Members. There are about 50 or 60 of them outside, with 20 or 30 police standing out in the cold. There is plenty of room in St. Stephen's Hall, yet they are not being admitted there.
I claim that constituents have a right to come here and lobby their Members of Parliament. I have raised this before. I do not know who gives anyone such as


an official of the House power to stop people coming to lobby their Members of Parliament.
Will you please order that anyoneanyone—who is outside now, and who wants to come in to see his Member of Parliament, is to be admitted, and stop officialdom interfering with the rights of constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing the attention of the House to the situation which he has outlined. Perhaps the Serjeant at Arms will take note of his remarks.

Mr. Johnson: Before that intervention, I was dealing with the happy subject of camaraderie on the high seas. I know that Portuguese hospital ships off Newfoundland will give aid to anyone, as will Communist, for example, Polish fleets.
This is not the day for long speeches, because so many of the points which arise, particularly about accidents on ships, will be dealt with in Committee. It is, therefore, superfluous to deal with them now, but I must refer to one or two matters.
Clause 1 refers to equipment and machinery. Like the Minister, I believe that a much more careful examination must be made into accidents on deck. There was some high-falutin' talk about the "ergonomics of human locomotion upon an oscillating and slippery surface". Holland-Martin has something to say here. I think that the university—hon. Members can guess which one—at a deep-sea fishing port will best be able to tackle this matter of the design of hand rails, doors, etc.
I sometimes marvel at the money spent by big business on designing chairs, sofas, and furniture for the interiors of houses. If a little of that money were spent on designing the interiors of fishing vessels, there would be far fewer accidents as a result of people slipping on decks covered with fish offal, and suchlike.
We all accept the need to improve the standards for guarding winches. Fishermen often talk about the dangers of winches and other machinery on deck. Factories on land must guard their machines. We must ensure that factories at sea do the same.
I am sure that all these matters will be scrutinised carefully in Committee. I welcome the Bill, and I wish it a speedy passage on to the Statute Book.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: I, too, give the Bill a very warm welcome. I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) in his place because, although the President of the Board of Trade has undoubtedly had a good deal to do with the Bill, I fancy that the right hon. Member for Grimsby, in his previous job as President of the Board of Trade, played a part in it, until he found himself kicked upstairs in a rather strange way early last autumn.
All those who represent fishing constituencies, and, indeed, the whole House, know the appalling distress which is caused by the loss of a trawler, or the loss of an individual fisherman. Certainly, the loss of a trawler results in an atmosphere of gloom which spreads way and beyond the immediate industry. We therefore welcome the Bill and all that it will do to help trawler safety.
I come immediately to what I think has been one of the major difficulties in providing safety. Since the war the industry has not been showing a large enough return on capital to invest in new ships and new equipment which would have done much to alleviate the problems of safety which we are debating today. It will be no good making orders and regulations about safety unless, at the same time, we make certain that the industry is in an economic position to make a profit afterwards.
I make no bones about it. There is only one way in which the industry can be helped to make a profit, and that is on the end price. I hope that the Government will not resort to giving additional subsidies in order to make these improvements to vessels, but that they will go on with a policy which will ensure that an economic price is paid for the catch. This will enable investment to take place in the industry so that it keeps up to date and provides a reasonable return for all those engaged in it, be they employers, or employees. This return includes keeping the vessels in a safe and proper condition for people


to work in. That is the right way to tackle the problem.
One matter which needs consideration is the provision of an additional radio station. Owing to the drilling for gas and oil in the North Sea, considerable demands are made on the Humber and at Whitley Bay radio stations. There is considerable delay in getting messages through from ships at sea because of the congestion, brought about largely by the oil rigs. The other day I tabled a Question to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications asking whether he would consider providing an additional station, in view of the express need for it. The right hon. Gentleman replied that this was no longer a matter for him, but for the postal authority, or whatever it is called.
This is a matter for the House, and this is a good opportunity to raise it. I hope that the Minister will do what he can to help in this respect. The other day a skipper told me that his was the eleventh call waiting to be passed through the Humber radio station. It might have been an urgent call, and he would have had to wait for up to two hours, and that is a very long time indeed. Something needs to be done about this problem.
I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher Cook) said about the support ship. I am surprised that we cannot write into the Bill a statutory duty on the Government to provide one. I feel that after a year or two there may be a sliding away from the responsibility to supply one, and I should like to see the Bill contain a provision to ensure that we have our share of support ships on duty.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that this, or any other, Government would deliberately go out of their way to withdraw the services of a support ship?

Mr. Prior: I think that it is possible. After all, we have had a support ship for only two years, and perhaps in a few years' time, when all these safety regulations have been introduced, the Government may say that there is no need for a support ship. We have had a support

ship for only two years. Before that one was not considered necessary, and the time may come when that view is taken again. The hon. Gentleman believes that no Government would get out of the responsibility to provide a support ship, but I think that there is every reason for writing that responsibility into the Bill. It would make it necessary for the Government of the day always to fulfil this obligation. That is what I should like to see.

Mr. McNamara: Thinking about the hon. Gentleman's argument and his own party's suggestions on cutting Government expenditure, it might be an idea to write it into the Bill.

Mr. Prior: I would treat that sort of remark with the contempt it obviously deserves. Certainly, I would like to see written into the Bill something committing all Governments to having a support ship. I would have thought that a reasonable thing to do.
We come now to the question of the financial effect of the Bill and its effects on public service manpower. There are two points here. The first is that the surveys which will have to be carried out on every facet will have to be done by skilled labour; the annual survey dealing with radio and with life-saving appliances, I would have thought, could have been carried out by the fishery officers in the ports concerned. I would like to hear what views the Government have on this. The fishery officers are in constant touch with the industry. They generally get on very well with the industry and they would seem to me to be the people to carry out this job, without any additional cost to the Exchequer.
Finally, I would like to know when—given a fair passage of the Bill through the House—we are likely to have the rules brought into operation. The sooner the industry knows what it has to do, the quicker it can get on with it and the quicker it can make its dispositions of cost. The fishing industry is now enjoying a minor boom. It probably has a little more money at the moment than it may have at some time in the future. From all points of view, therefore, the sooner this is brought in the better.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am, like many other hon. Members, very glad to see this Bill before the House. My only regret is that we were not debating it some time ago. It needed the terrible tragedies which overtook the "Kingston Peridot", the "Ross Cleveland" and the "St. Romanus" to bring forward this piece of legislation. It appears that there is nothing like a disaster to concentrate the mind. It was only then the "Orsino" was sent out to do the essential services which we now hurry to say are so necessary and which the Germans accepted as such as far back as 1948.
We have a very long way to go. When one reads the appendix to the Holland-Martin Report, with its description of the German support ships and their enormous range of specialist services—right down to operating theatres—we realise we are only now, rather late, coming to the beginning of a very long road indeed. The appalling accident rate is something we have known about for a very long time. Holland-Martin goes back into the 'fifties with these figures. The bald statement in terms of "standard mortality ratio"—the rather strange dehumanised concept—is something which should have taken up more of our attention a long time ago.
I was struck by the fact that although it is the disaster that overwhelms a boat that hits the headlines, it is the continuing series of minor mishaps—minor in the sense of numbers involved, but all too serious and perhaps final for the individual involved—which are a feature of the statistics. As the Holland-Martin Report says at paragraph 10:
It is clear that accidents to individual crew members at work, occurring when their ships are not in danger present an equally serious—if not more serious—problem.
I at least would like to see a great deal more work done on this subject.
Since March, 1968, we have made good speed. Sir Deric Holland-Martin and his Committee are to be congratulated, as are the Government, in that we are beginning to make up some of the leeway. The Bill will be widely welcomed in my part of the world, the port of Aberdeen, where fishing is one of our basic industries. It is interesting to see that over

1,600 men are employed in the Aberdeen fleet. In 1948 the figure was 2,600. This partially represents the onset of mechanisation—the industry's productivity rate is one which could be copied with great advantage in many other parts of Britain. It also reflects the nature of the industry itself. There will always be a tendency for men to drift out of fishing. Almost every year recently recruits have been outnumbered by the losses from the Aberdeen fleet. This reflects the fact that it is a hunting industry. It is a dangerous trade, and life in the fishing fleet will always be rough.
For all that, we have a duty as legislators to minimise the hazards inherent in the trade. There is a perhaps rather parochial but still understandable feeling in Aberdeen that when we talk in terms of the fishing industry too often we are talking about the Humber. The near and middle water fleet is too often neglected. This is true whether we are considering rationalisation of the industry by I.R.C. or safety regulations.
There are one or two specific recommendations in the Holland-Martin Report which refer to the near and middle water fleet. I hope they will not be forgotten when the Government consider what action and regulations they will introduce under the enabling Statute. An enormous amount has been done, probably in every one of the fishing centres. Certainly when it comes to radio and radio communications I have now very few complaints from the men serving on the Aberdeen boats. The regular reporting every 24 hours and the standard of radio equipment is considered satisfactory at the present time. I welcome the fact that statutory force has been given to the improvements that have been voluntarily made. It is certainly necessary to ensure there is no slipping away from the standards we would all like to see.
Many aspects of the Bill are highly technical and laymen like myself are well advised to keep away from them. I too, like the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cook), was impressed by paragraph 83, dealing with the definition of stability. Those three or four lines are fascinating. There is one general comment which could be


made by anyone, however inexpert his mind may be:
If the quantity"—
that is, of stability—
is deficient the ship may capsize in extreme weather, if it is excessive the ship will probably be unnecessarily large and expensive, difficult to operate and stiff and uncomfortable in her movements.
It seems the disadvantages fall very sharply into two sections. No one wants a ship which is unmanœuvreable, a ship that cannot be worked efficiently. But in general terms there must never be a tendency, as perhaps there has been in some cases in the past, for the factor of expense to bulk too large in the consideration of where the balance on stability should be struck.
We are faced with the situation where we will for some time be using the older boats, where the stability ratio cannot be altered. I hope we shall not relax the pressure in the field, for instance, of de-icing the equipment merely because of the harsh realities that the Holland-Martin Report refers to. It may be true that we are a long way away from an adequate answer. It may be that pneumatic sleeves, and so on, have not been developed to a stage where they are the complete solution. But given the nature of the industry and given the financial pressures in the industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said, I suspect there will always be this temptation to make one last haul before running for cover when the meteorological people warn that the conditions for icing are approaching fast. We must not relax the search for the answer.
One of the recommendations of Holland-Martin is that the Board of Trade should consider commissioning design studies for stern trawlers in the smaller range. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said, no fishermen would deny that the stern trawler was intrinsically a safer fishing vessel than the conventional side trawler. The Holland-Martin Report mentions this at some length. It admits that there is some argument within the industry about the economic viability of stern trawlers in the near and middle-distance category. In Aberdeen where we have a large fleet of over 100 vessels we have no stern trawlers.
We had one short-lived experiment—a very small boat that was really a pocket trawler and it did not last. There is one due to arrive soon, ordered by an owner noted for his progressive attitude in this field. I very much hope that it will be a success. There can be no doubt that the greater confidence that stern trawling gives to the crew is a considerable element in improving the safety record of the fleet. When it comes to shooting and hauling the gear there can be no room for argument on this point. I hope that the Board of Trade will consider whether there is some way in which it can act as a catalyst to encourage what must be an important development, which has been far too long in coming in the near and middle-distance fleets.
The Bill is only one side of the story. I welcome the fact that we are now taking action in the Merchant Shipping Acts to deal with what has been called the human element. We all hear stories about how men have been fishing for literally 40 or 50 hours at a stretch. It is very difficult to get the kind of manning structure which will allow six hours off regularly in 24 in a middle-distance boat where, as Holland-Martin points out, the entire crew of 11 is needed to work the gear. This is mast important and the biggest single contribution that can be made to trawler safety. The endurance of the trawler men is something which we can admire, but at the end of the day the kind of conditions and pressures under which they have to work when they are at the fishing grounds must militate against efficiency and do a lot to encourage the kind of personal accidents to which I have referred.
Of course, Holland-Martin will be expensive, in terms of the crewing element, the time off and the longer stay ashore between trips. It will also be expensive in terms of boats and equipment once these regulations are finally promulgated. This is something we will have to face, the Government as much as industry, if necessary in partnership. We cannot go on paying the kind of price that we are paying now. It does not matter how much lip-service we pay in terms of admiration for the men who catch the fish which we eat so casually at our dining table; we have to recognise


the financial implications and do our utmost to ensure that the fleet is safe and that it operates under the kind of conditions which encourages men to stay in an industry which is of great importance to this country and particularly to the areas in which it is based.
It is an industry very uncertain in its distribution. Where fishing is important it is very important for the locality concerned. I was impressed by what the President of the Board of Trade said about the feeling of powerlessness when he discovered that he could not even lay regulations because he had not got the powers. At least we are now sweeping that away. That must be a cause for celebration. My impression is that in the fleets the men are aware of the safety factor as never before. That is why, for example, they are pressing for joint safety committees in every port, a recommendation of Holland-Martin which I hope will not be forgotten but will be implemented in the near future. I am certain that the Government, having got the power, will now press on energetically and lay the regulations.
I was glad that the Opposition so freely and properly promised their support and co-operation. I believe that the Minister's approach will be welcomed by all interested in the industry and that there will be enthusiastic support for the work which has been started.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: This has been a harsh winter in the North Sea and in our debate today we feel a sense of sadness for the lives that have been lost in the fishing industry recently. There is no doubt about the widespread support and agreement for the Bill. Anything that can be done to increase safety for our fishermen will be welcomed, and I join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in giving a warm welcome to the start made through the introduction of the Bill.
I, too, was impressed by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, not only for its content, but particularly by the point he made about the safety record of the British merchant fleet over the last century and the very much better record that has been built up as safety regulations, with Government intervention to make them work, and which have

worked their way through the industry. This must happen in the fishing industry, too.
The safety of vessels is very much in question in all sections of the fleet. It affects those involved in the most direct ways. The difficulty of obtaining crews to fish in certain waters today shows the extent of the concern about safety. To what extern does the Bill apply to the construction and design of inshore boats? I understand that it applies to any fishing boat, and I would be interested to know whether that extends to the very smallest boats which go out to pick up a few lobster pots off the coast.
The original concept was that Holland-Martin should involve itself with vessels over 80 feet. That seems to indicate that the smaller boats have not necessarily been considered with the same scientific attention that has been devoted to the larger fishing vessels. The right hon. Gentleman said that these regulations would apply to the trawler fleet. I would like greater clarification about the timetable and the development of the administration involved. I imagine that the advantage of this will be that experts will have the chance to consider the needs of the inshore fleet in the same way as they have considered the needs of the deep-sea fleet. Design studies are particularly helpful. I was glad to hear about the provisions being written into the Merchant Shipping Bill. Obviously, the human factor is at least as important as the construction factor in terms of safety.
They have the advantage of being comparatively cheaper, particularly in relation to the expense of alterations for ships coming under the survey. Human details, such as clothing, training, medical inspections, radio procedures and fishing hours, are extremely important to safety, but they do not represent the comparatively large capital involvement needed to make our trawling and fishing fleet much more secure.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill needs clarification. The President of the Board of Trade told us that it was to provide for those boats which could not be brought up to I.M.C.O. standard. Will those vessels be named, so that the fishermen will known what is involved if they sail on them? If we are to have a code of regulations on safety for fishing vessels, all who are involved in the


industry should be told as soon as possible which vessels comply with the regulations and which do not.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I, like all hon. Members who represent seaports, give a warm welcome to the Bill, not only because it is so necessary but because to a large extent it finishes the Government's support of the fishing industry. I do not mean that the support will not continue, but the fishing industry in Hull has a great deal for which to be grateful to the Government, including the I.R.C., the E.F.T.A. Agreements, the Merchant Shipping Bill and now this Bill. My constituents have much to thank the Labour Government for, and the people there, the families and the unions, are conscious of this.
Will the Minister tell us more specifically what are the plans to replace the "Orsino"? How far have negotiations gone for the building and construction of a specific ship or to obtain a similar type of vessel? The "Orsino" is not due to be chartered again to the Board of Trade, and we should like to know what vessel will replace it. Could an early statement be made on this?
May I ask what has happened to Recommendation 83 of the Holland-Martin Committee, which concerns the establishment of the much-needed National Trawler Health and Safety Committee? The first annual report of the T.U.C. Centenary Institute of Occupational Health gives, on page 14, several possible explanations of the high death rates of fishermen, and states:
Deep sea fishing attracts unusual men who follow an arduous and exacting job but to elucidate the causes of disease and injury among them demands a prolonged and detailed study of a large fishing population which has not yet been done.
There are many reasons why it has not been done. Valuable work has been done amongst Grimsby fishermen, and there is an interesting statistical table at the back of the Holland-Martin Report, but there has not been an overall look at the picture. What is the reason for the various types of disease referred to in the Holland-Martin and T.U.C. Reports? Surely, to find the answer to this was specifically the job of the National Trawler Health and Safety Committee. What has happened to that excellent idea and why has it not been developed?

I hope that my hon. Friends who are members of the Committee which is considering the Merchant Shipping Bill will forgive me if I refer to points which I have made in that Committee. There is no provision in the Bill for a safety representative either from the union or elected from the crew aboard when the trawler is at sea. This is an important omission from the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) in Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill moved new Clause 3, paragraph (b) of which reads as follows:
the setting up in ships of committees of persons employed in ships to which the regulations apply to be known as ships' safety committees;".
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State replied in this way:
The main fishing ports have already established port safety committees on which owners, officers and fishermen are represented, and this may be the best way to handle business in that industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 26th February 1970; c. 621–2.]
I disagree with my right hon. Friend. The port safety committees are in the ports and not on the vessels. The situation in a port is very different from that in a fishery vessel at sea in bad weather.
There are trade union representatives on the port safety committee, although they are heavily outnumbered by owners, insurance companies and various other representatives, but there are no lay members of the trade unions on it. This may be a criticism of the trade unions. Men who are working in this difficult environment from day to day should be on the committee. Even more important, there should be representatives at sea who are able to deal with safety matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) referred to paragraph 123 of the Holland-Martin Report:
It is somewhat illogical that employees in factories should be protected at work by legal regulations on the design and operation of machinery when no similar requirements exist for the protection of trawlermen at sea.
But it could equally well read:
It is somewhat illogical that employees in factories should be protected at work by legal regulations on health and safety when no similar requirements exist for the protection of trawlermen at sea.
We all agree with that, and that is why we welcome the Bill.
Clause 8(1)(a) of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill, to which


we gave a Second Reading yesterday, provides that:
at a factory at which ten or more persons are for the time being employed by the occupier to work in the factory (exclusive of casual workers), there may be appointed from among them by the recognised trade union or unions persons to act as safety representatives under this Act in the interests of the persons so employed;".
That is obviously a most important provision which could adequately fit the situation on the trawler. It is particularly important because the trawler owners have set their minds against this sort of representation. They have not dealt with the recommendation in the Holland-Martin Report that there should be a re-examination by unions and employers of the complaint procedure on board trawlers. This is regrettable since Holland-Martin went to some length to look at the complaint procedure and recommended that experiments should be made by the progressive firms to look at the matter of representation at sea.
It must be remembered that we are dealing with the human element. Although we can legislate as far as possible for machinery to be covered, for winches to be guarded, and for there to be no fishing in particularly bad weather, we have to consider how to enforce that legislation. I suggest that it should be enforced by the safety representative on board the vessel who is able to lodge a complaint with the skipper about a particular piece of machinery or a certain labour hazard.
When the Bill goes to Committee I hope that my right hon. Friend will look again at this problem. The situation is somewhat illogical bearing in mind the good example set by the Marine Federation to the trawler owners and also remembering the provisions contained in the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill which we discussed yesterday. Therefore, there should be similar legislation for the fishing industry. I urge this course upon the Government since it is of great importance.
I should like to echo the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) as to the need for adequate consultation in the industry when regulations are being drawn up. If it cannot be written into the Bill, perhaps the House can be given an

undertaking that both sides of the industry, employers and unions, will be given adequate opportunity to examine proposed draft regulations before they come before the House, particularly when they are subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
It is important that both sides of the industry should be able to see regulations since many of these matters are highly technical. There are places, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar), into which laymen should never trespass, but we are dealing with men and their representatives who are employed in what all recognise as being the most highly dangerous industry in the world. Therefore, they should be given full opportunity to examine the machinery and regulations under which they will be required to work.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary could say in his reply to the debate whether Clause 1 of the Bill, or indeed the regulations under the Merchant Shipping Bill, cover adequate lighting for the working area on the decks. There is provision in recommendations that where oil lamps exist there should be secondary electrical lamps, but it has been brought to my attention by the men's representatives that they would like specific undertakings about adequate lighting on the working deck surface on board vessels.
I should also like to ask whether, under Clause 1, regulations will be drawn up to safeguard the use of wires. I am informed that what frequently happens is that where wire has been discarded as unsuitable for trawling, it may often be used for smaller jobs on board ships such as winching, small runs of wire on deck, and things of that nature. These wires often are corroded and dangerous. Will adequate regulations be drawn up under the Bill to cover the use of wires to prevent the possibility of accidents?
We all welcome the Bill. When one says that it is long overdue, it also means that one regrets that it was ever due. It is a sad reflection that at this time in the 20th century a Bill needs to be introduced to protect the lives of so many men in this industry and also to protect the future of their wives and families. I should like to put on record my appreciation of the warm and sincere way in


which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade introduced the Bill. He expressed the feelings of our constituents in words far better than the majority of us could hope to use.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Like everybody else who has taken part in the debate, I welcome the Bill and the manner in which it was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. Anybody from a fishing port would acknowledge the emotion he expressed, having himself been to sea. He understands the emotional impact of a disaster in a fishing port. It goes far beyond the people immediately involved. It has the same impact as a mining disaster or some other great natural catastrophe. The Measure is welcome because, although it will not make conditions absolutely safe—and none of us can hope to do that—it will make the situation as safe as possible so far as legislation can achieve this end.
I will not repeat many of the arguments which have been put forward; they have been expressed far better than I could express them. I should like to take up the matter mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) about the negative procedure. I have often thought that there is a case in this House for having, in addition to our present Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which merely exists to see that the Ministries have complied with various requirements, smaller committees, such as a fisheries committee, to consider the various matters and suggestions that arise before a matter comes finally before the House for approval.

Mr. James Johnson: Could we not follow the example of the city of Bucharest, which has a fisheries committee that meets to discuss a Bill beforehand and indeed shapes Bills for Ministers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We should not pursue that matter too far since it is not in the Bill.

Mr. Clegg: With the best will in the world, I could not follow the hon. Gentleman as far as Bucharest. To turn to particular items, the Bill is not concerned in the first place with the industry, but with the shipbuilding industry which is going to build and develop new trawlers.
What liaison exists between the Board of Trade surveyors and the shipbuilders engaged in building trawlers about the application of the new standards? May we be told more about the research aspects? The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) raised one aspect about de-icing procedures. Personally, I feel that not enough has been done in research. Many of the regulations will deal with the structure of the ship, the ballast and stability of the vessel, and so on, but I hope that in addition there will be research into the machinery used on board to make it safer and, if the matter comes within the purview of the Board of Trade, to make living conditions on board better than they are at present. This is a problem for the industry. It has not only to get safe ships if it is to get crews, but ships with better living accommodation. On the East Coast, the competition from shore-based industry for labour is so intense that, unless there is a combination of safety and comfort at sea, there will not be a viable fishing industry, because the men will not be there to go to sea.
I want to refer to the problem of the inshore fisherman. The President of the Board of Trade was in my constituency recently, and he knows that there are many to be found there. I was glad to hear that consultations are to take place, and presumably they will be the last phase of the operation. But what concerns me is the ability of the inshore fishing interests to take part in those consultations. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could instruct his Department to liaise with the fisheries officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who know what these men are thinking and what their problems are. I hope that there will be adequate liaison on that point.
I welcome the Bill. I think that it will be the start of a new era in the profession. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said. We want a viable industry. To do that we must get new trawlers and modify our old ones as soon as possible. The more viable that the industry is, the sooner we can have new vessels, especially the stern-trawling type recommended by the Board of Trade.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Before coming to the burden of my remarks, I


want to take up two points which have been raised in the debate. First, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) spoke about accidents on board trawlers. I believe that the White Fish Authority is about to undertake a research programme into the causes and results of accidents on a statistical basis, at least, in the very near future. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can confirm that.
The other point was that made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) who spoke about the endurance factor and the working hours. His remarks in that respect are as applicable to the inshore fleet as they are to the other sections of the fishing industry.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I give a warm welcome to the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade referred to the fatalities that there have been over the course of years. In the replies to a series of Questions which I asked the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity in January of this year, some very disturbing results were shown.
One of my Questions asked for a comparison between the fatality rates in various selected industries. Taking an average of the five years to the end of 1968, at one end of the scale I found that the number of people killed in the motor car manufacturing industry was 0·2 persons per thousand employed. Over the same period in the coalmining industry, the figure was 0·37 persons per thousand employed. In other mining and quarrying, it was 0·75 persons per thousand employed. At the other end of the scale I found that in fishing the figure was 1·85 persons per thousand employed. Over that period of five years, I found that it is almost six times as dangerous to be a fisherman as it is to be a coal miner, and 2½ times more dangerous to be a fisherman than it is to be employed in other mining and quarrying.
Another measure of the problem that one faces in the context of safety at sea is that, over a similar period to the end of 1968, an average of no less than 10 men were lost at sea or died of injuries each year in the Scottish inshore vessels. In England and Wales, the average was

only two per year, although it is fair to point out that slightly fewer men are employed in the inshore fleet in England than are employed in Scotland.
The figures for the distant water fleet for England and Wales show that 107 men were lost at sea or died of injuries in the same period. That is an average of 21 a year. The figures were tragically inflated by the loss of the three trawlers "St. Romanus", "Kingston Peridot" and "Ross Cleveland". It was the loss of those trawlers which was the genesis of the Bill which is before us today, via the Holland-Martin Report.
The Government are right to extend the provisions of the Bill and the scope of the Holland-Martin Report to other fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom. Naturally, I am concerned with safety in the inshore fleet because I have in my constituency probably the biggest concentration of inshore vessels in any part of the United Kingdom.
It is also a tragic fact that two vessels based on my constituency or crewed by my constituents have been lost with all hands in the past two years. I refer to the "Refleurir" and the "Coral Isle". The latter vessel disappeared with all hands in December of last year and, as this is possibly the first opportunity of doing so, I am sure that hon. Members will join me in expressing our sympathy to the relatives of the lost crew. In addition to the six men who were lost in the "Coral Isle", in the past three months a total of nine men have been lost from my constituency, and one was very seriously injured.
It is a truism that fishermen are extremely brave men. I have heard it said that they are men who work with death at their left hands. They are by no means morbid about it. By nature, they are of a cheerful and resilient disposition. It is also true to say that familiarity with the sea does not breed contempt in our fishermen. But it breeds a sort of casualness, and I hope that this Bill and its progeny in the shape of Statutory Instruments will provide safety measures which fishermen themselves would never dream of applying.
There is no doubt that some of the results of the rules and regulations will be unpopular with owners and skippers. However, we as a House have to face the responsibility of seeing, on behalf of


fishermen and owners and, more important, the families of fishermen, that everything possible is done to apply the results of modern design, research, and so on.
I should like at this juncture to pay tribute to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who has been extremely courteous and helpful to me during the course of the representations that I have made to him about the safety at sea of the inshore fleet. I have one or two questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who I understand will reply to the debate and who has a great knowledge of the problem.
First, the rules will eventually give rise to modifications and alterations in the structure and equipping of vessels. Will such modifications rank for grant? I have in mind, for instance, the installing of power blocks. It is conceivable that, as a result of the research which has been done, the installation of power blocks may be obligatory in inshore vessels.
Will the certificates which are to be issued under Clause 3 be, in effect, certificates of sea-worthiness overall? Will they include not only the structure of the vessel, its water-tightness and all other things like that, but also its stability, as it were?
What about surveyors? The "Financial effects of the Bill and its effects on public service manpower", on page ii state that
The administration of requirements imposed under the Bill will involve a small increase in the staff of the Board of Trade engaged in marine surveys.
If all fishing vessels are to be covered annually, it seems that more than a small increase will be necessary to cope with this certification. How many people does the Board of Trade foresee being employed in this way and when will a sufficient number become available? In the interim, has the Board of Trade considered utilising the services of surveyors at present employed by insurance companies and so on?
When is it anticipated that the certificates will be applied to inshore vessels? I have no doubt, from the terms of the Bill, that they will be. But what kind of time scale is involved?
The Government say, quite rightly, that consultations are necessary before the rules are framed and brought before Parliament. I hope that the Government will not be dilatory in bring forward rules for the inshore fleet as well as for other parts of the industry. As I have tried to point out from the figures, it is equally urgent for that section of the industry as for the deep sea trawlers.
In opening the President mentioned stability tests for trawlers. May we have art indication, again as regards the inshore fleet, about the work being done on the stability of inshore vessels? This is important, because, for economic reasons, some boats are going further and further afield—that may not be quite the right expression when applied to fishing. However, they are going much further away from the shore than was the usual procedure earlier.
I am sure that as the Bill progresses through Committee many points will come to our notice. I have had a certain amount of correspondence with boat builders in my constituency, and I anticipate more. I very much hope that action can, and will be, taken as speedily as possible not only in the interests of the safety of the fishermen themselves, but also, as I said earlier, in the interests of the families who wait at home. There is a tremendous strain on those families, and anything we can do to improve the safety of the men who go to sea in fishing vessels will be appreciated throughout the land—not least in the fishing ports. For this reason, I give a very hearty welcome to the Bill.

5.45 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: My interest in the fishing industry stems from connections in my constituency with the inshore fleet. But once one gets interested in fishing, one tends to get interested in the industry as a whole. Therefore, I can welcome the Bill as sincerely as almost every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken.
The fact that I am interested in the inshore fleet reinforces in a way, that most of the dangers to those who go to sea in ships exist, with some exceptions, very close to the shore. Therefore, the provisions embodied in Clause 3 apply as much whether ships go far out to sea or stay close to the shore. This needs stressing particularly.
One of my hon. Friends mentioned support ships. This matter also needs following up. Whilst I have most connection with inshore fishing, I hear from others what is going on. I believe that the pattern of fishing changes, but that there is not sufficient flexibility in the help that is given by support ships as the fleet moves about. I wonder whether we might hear something about that.
Naturally, because my constituency is connected with the inshore industry, I wonder what impact the Bill will have on the inshore fleet and whether the considerations which will have to be borne in mind and the certificates which will have to be given will put a limit on where boats may go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) mentioned the economic factor forcing people to go further out to sea. He also mentioned power blocks. I believe that these may, in certain circumstances, enable people to go on fishing because they have power to help them, whereas, so many years ago, when they did not have the power to help them, they could not have gone on fishing. Therefore, the fact that we use science and invention to help leads, to a certain extent, into further danger. I hope that the provisions that are made will be sensibly applied. It is difficult to understand from the Bill who will do what, particularly concerning the inshore fleet.
The majority of points which could be raised have already been made, but I should like to mention one which, whilst not in the Bill, has a great effect on safety at sea—namely, forecasting.
People may say that we have all the weather forecasting that we need. But I have heard from fishermen in my constituency, particularly those who go for line fishing in the Faroes and that part of the world, that, whilst there are perfectly good weather forecasts made at night and at midday, at the time of day when they finish their day's fishing they do not have adequate weather forecasts to enable them to decide whether to stay and fish for another day or to make for home. A synopsis of the weather at 6 o'clock in the evening would require about another two minutes of broadcasting time.
I should think that even the "popsiest" of "pop" music devotees

would be happy to give up two minutes of broadcasting time to ensure a greater measure of safety at sea. I hope that this will be borne in mind.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: We were all impressed by the sincere way in which the President of the Board of Trade spoke and the general interest which he and his predecessor have taken in the Bill. I hope that he has been equally pleased by the support which the Bill has received from every speaker in this debate. This underlines the importance of the Bill—although there is not much meat in it. The meat comes later when the Board of Trade regulations are published.
I was glad that the Minister said that there would be full consultation with all sides of the industry before the regulations are published. I would remind him of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said about the problem of the negative procedure. Could all these regulations be tabled together? It would be a pity if they came up one after another. The Opposition will certainly want to debate them when they are tabled. When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the regulations to be published? I appreciate that he cannot give us an exact date but it would be helpful to know whether it would he in the next month or the next three months. I imagine that they would be published, at any rate, before the Summer Recess.
The accident rate in the deep-water fleet is, of course, far too high and must be reduced, and the Bill will, we hope, help to reduce it. But it is only fair to point out that the industry itself has done quite a lot in this direction and has set certain standards. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the mutual insurance companies in most of the major ports have played a great part in promoting safety. These are co-operative and non-profit-making bodies.
I was struck by an article in the Fish Trades Gazette on 25th February, in which the writer said:
In my experience of the industry, I have seen the local owners lead the industry and be far ahead of Government regulations in providing radio, radar, fire-fighting equipment, navigational aids, self-inflating dinghies, one man centre line boat davits and many other things.


I only quote this to put the record straight and to show that, although the accident rate, as has been agreed, is far too high, the industry has not been negligent, but has done all it can to reduce it.
I turn now to Clause 1 and the Holland-Martin recommendations 16 to 25. These hull, equipment and machinery regulations will obviously apply to all new ships, but I am still not clear what the Government have in mind about existing vessels. Are there to be special regulations for each type of ship, as the right hon. Gentleman hinted, or will there be general regulations, with exemptions, which the Bill allows him to make, for specific ships? Will these be merely by classes or types of ship, or will they also affect the area, or perhaps the season, or the amount of catch which each ship is allowed to take from the sea, as these factors obviously affect stability to some degree? There is a danger that if we have too many classes under regulations, particularly with regard to fishing grounds and seasons, and we may get into such confusion that this Bill will do more harm than good. I hope that this will be borne in mind when the regulations are drawn up.
On recommendation No. 19 of the Holland-Martin Report, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen mentioned the I.M.C.O. standards of stability. How many existing ships would pass that test? I appreciate that the Minister may not know this figure, but it was discussed when the Holland-Martin Report was presented to the House. Probably the Minister has some idea whether the majority of existing ships are likely to pass the test or not. If not, of course, a rather serious situation arises, because I understand that it is a costly job to improve the stability of ships and we do not want to put too many older ships out of commission too quickly.
The Holland-Martin recommendation No. 22, on fire hazards at sea, has been referred to. This is accepted as one of the greatest risks to be run at sea, since it is so much more dangerous than fire on land. The Holland-Martin Report on page 44 said:
The Hull Steam Trawlers Mutual Insurance and Protecting Company has led the way in formulating standards of structural fire protection for Hull trawlers and we consider that

full account should be taken of this work in formulating the statutory requirements.
To what extent is that a fact? In other words, are the majority of older ships likely to conform or could they conform without too much additional expense, to the necessary improvements required to check the spread of fire?
A number of hon. Gentleman have referred to the application of these regulations to the inshore fleet. They will apply, I suppose rightly, first to the distant-water fleet. I am sure that the Minister will want to say something about the inshore fleet, whether there will be entirely different sets of regulations—obviously there is even more diversity among inshore vessels than distant-water or middle-water vessels—and whether he agrees with the suggestion that the fishery officers should be consulted about the inshore fleet, because they are very experienced in this type of work.
I turn now to Clause 2 and Holland-Martin Recommendations Nos. 7 to 15 and 26 to 39, which cover practically all the safety equipment requirements in a ship. We all agree that safety is essential. I was particularly pleased when the Minister made it clear that the recommendation that distant-water trawlers should carry wireless as well as R/T was to be enforced, and, in fact, is in force and working satisfactorily. This is a very important matter.
The matter of inflatable boats and survival suits has been raised, as has the ever-present danger of black ice, which affects stability. I know that some experiments have been done on these matters. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman could make a short reference to them, but we should like to know who will be responsible for research into safety. The Board of Trade is drawing up regulations and will be responsible for making exceptions, and issuing certificates. But is there any organisation responsible for research into safety into fishing vessels? The White Fish Authority considers an aspect of this work, but the basic job of the W.F.A. is on economic research. A lot of fallout effects problems of safety, but do the Government intend to give the authority a little more scope in this respect? Most people would agree that research into this aspect of safety at sea will be of great value. Perhaps the


W.F.A. can be given a wider field to cover?
The subject of fatigue is covered by a number of recommendations in the Holland-Martin Report. The House can lay down statutory provisions in regard to hours of work but it is very difficult to enforce these on the fishing grounds, as anyone who has been there knows. The question of the turn-round of the ship and, perhaps, the need for more leave between fishing trips, particularly distant-water ones, should be considered, but this and the whole question of the human element and of manning is referred to in the Merchant Shipping Bill, so I must not discuss it at any length here. This also applies to training, which the House will agree is very important, because it, too, effects the human element. With properly trained and certificated seamen, accidents are much less likely.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked about a safety representative at sea or, as many other hon. Members would describe him, a shop steward at sea. I do not believe that this is necessary. I should like to read from a letter which I have received from the Hull Trawler Officers Guild on this matter:
I would…like to state that we as a Guild representing the Trawler Officers of Hull consist of 300 Members who are very competent. experienced and time-served Fishermen, we know our ships and we know what our job is, we will not in any way have our authority as Skippers undermined by Shop Stewards (Ship Board representation) this will not work.
I mention this only to point out that the whole question is not as simple as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North implied. Indeed, there seems to be considerable opposition to the suggestion from certain parts of the industry.

Mr. MacNamara: If the hon. Gentleman examines everything that I have said on this issue he will find that neither I nor the union has at any time ever challenged the fact that ultimate responsibility for the safety of the crew, the craft and the cargo should be with the skipper. The hon. Gentleman is under the same misapprehension in considering the phrase "shop steward" as the guild is under.

Mr. Wall: I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman must equally accept that in a small ship with a small crew there is a danger, if a person is doing the sort of work the hon. Gentleman has in mind, that there could arise a conflict with the skipper, or that his authority might be challenged. We should not forget that most ports have port discipline committees which work well. Perhaps we should leave them to undertake this work.

Mr. MacNamara: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wall: This matter is not easy to resolve, and it is causing considerable concern in certain sections of the industry. The hon. Gentleman and I must agree to disagree about it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen and others raised the question of support ships. It is encumbent on the Government to supply adequate support for the fishing fleet, in the same way as it is becoming their resonsibility to supply air/sea rescue services. Today, R.A.F. helicopters are having to do this job, and in this technological age this type of work has become part of the services that must be provided as a national emergency service.
One ship, the "Orsino", is not sufficient, although she has done a good job. I do not know how much she has cost to charter, but she is not designed for this support task, and I agree with hon. Members who have called for the building of a specially designed ship along the lines of the German "Frithjof". Protection of this kind used to be provided by the Fishery Protection Squadron of the Royal Navy, we are here discussing the question of safety against the elements and not against an enemy.
In this connection, the letter from the Hull Trawler Officers Guild, from which I quoted, also stated that there had been a
…very strong complaint from …Members regarding the service or lack of service of the Fishery Protection Vessels …and 95 per cent. of the Hull Fishing Fleet are at present fishing off the Norwegian Coast while "Orsino" is stationed off Iceland.
The point is that with just one ship, the "Orsino", operating off Iceland, if 95 per cent. of the fleet is operating off Norway, the "Orsino" cannot give a great deal of help in those circumstances.
A case occurred recently when a man was injured off Bear Island and a Norwegian frigate had to steam for 16 hours to pick him up and then steam 16 hours to get him to hospital in Norway. I hope that the Government will look at this matter, remembering that in the old days ships of the Royal Navy were specially allocated and their crews were specially trained for fishery protection work. Today ships are detached for this purpose from the Western Fleet, and we do not have the same liaison and service.
I support the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen about the need for co-operation with support ships of other nations. It was pointed out that co-operation exists. It does. But what we need is co-ordination to ensure that Norwegian vessels will be in certain waters at certain times, that Icelandic vessels will be in other waters and that British vessels will be elsewhere, so that all areas are covered by support ships of various countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said that the real need was for an adequate return on capital so that money could be reinvested in ships and equipment. This brings me to the whole question of cost. The Minister will recall that when the then President of the Board of Trade presented the Holland-Martin Report to the House, I asked him—this was in July, 1969—
what will be the approximate cost of these recommendations and how will it be divided between the Government and the industry?
He replied:
It is not possible to put a precise figure on the cost of these proposals, but it will be substantial. How this should be shared is one of the most important matters I must discuss with the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1725–6.]
I imagine that those discussions are still going on.
The Holland-Martin Report suggested that the increased manning scales recommended might alone cost £1-4 million. Much of this manning problem may be overcome by greater automation, which may reduce the size of crews, as has already occurred in the engineroom. Can we have an approximation of the Government's views on the total cost of these regulations and of the share as between Government and industry?
Though we talk of cost, the House as a whole recognises that men's lives are

above cost. The loss of the "St. Romanus", the "Ross Cleveland" and the "Kingston Peridot" shocked the nation. Fishermen pursue a dangerous trade. The Bill will not prevent such tragedies, but it will make them less likely. This, at least, we owe to the men who died.

6.7 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): Although I speak tonight as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, I remind hon. Members that I am also the representative of a fishing constituency. For many years I have been concerned, both as Parliamentary Secretary and as the hon. Member for Leith, with the high cost of fishing in terms of men's lives. Thus, tonight I am doubly pleased to be playing a part in getting that price down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) said that often in this House hon. Members spoke of Hull and Grimsby—he might have mentioned Lowestoft and Fleetwood—as representing the whole of the fishing industry. That complaint was somewhat different from the one I received in a recent fishing debate from the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who asked if an hon. Member who represented an English constituency would be allowed to participate, apparently indicating that only Scottish hon. Members wished to speak on the subject.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out precisely what we are discussing. He said that the Bill covered all fishing vessels but that we needed certain priorities. The House will accept this. It is out intention to implement the Holland-Martin recommendations for deep-sea vessels, and no hon. Member would argue that this should not be one of our firs priorities.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) questioned me about the support price costs. The Estimate provision in the current year is £3 million in capital grants—these are paid through the White Fish Authority—and £4 million in operating subsidy. These are Great Britain figures covering the deep sea and inshore fleets, and it will be seen from these figures that we


have made allowance for considerable assistance. In addition, I agree with the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that for the first time for a considerable period the fishing fleet has been doing rather better. We are grateful for this.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen also raised the question of stability. The check on the stability characteristics of the existing distant water fleet is about 80 per cent. complete. It seems that only about one-quarter, if not less, of existing trawlers do not meet I.M.C.O. standards and will need modifications or limitations. The answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) on this aspect is that this check would be applied to other vessels if necessary.
The question of survival clothing has been examined by a committee of the Board of Trade in conjunction with the question of inflatable life rafts, and we understand that all vessels sailing to distant waters from all ports are having their life rafts fitted with aluminium foil bags. Our view is that, for the present at least, these provide the only practicable solution to the problem. Obviously we shall go on considering what can be done.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft asked me about the question of manpower. As my right hon. Friend said, survey work will be left to classification societies, wherever that is appropriate. A small increase in the professional staff of the Board of Trade seems unavoidable. We shall consider what help can be given by others, such as fishery officers. No matter who does the work, it will cost something. It is important to ensure that whoever does it has the right qualifications and knowledge of the subject. For example, it seems best to employ Post Office surveyors for radio, as is the practice for merchant ships.
Safety committees have already been set up in all the deep sea fishing ports. This follows the recommendation of the Holland-Martin Committee.
As to research, in submitting the report of his committee, Sir Deric Holland-Martin referred to work which had been completed by an inter-departmental committee established by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Technology in February, 1968 to consider whether any

research work should be undertaken into technical aspects of trawler safety in addition to the various studies already in hand.
This committee had concluded that there was no need for new studies, but a need, rather, for closer evaluation of studies—for example, on de-icing equipment—which had already been usefully developed. Further trials are still being carried out--for example, of the various types of equipment specially installed in the "Orsino". The Board of Trade and the White Fish Authority are continually engaged in research of this kind, as on other matters relevant to the problem. I assure the House that this work is proceeding.
Clause 1 provides for the provision of adequate lighting. However, the manner and the use of lighting and other equipment is covered by the new Clause in the Merchant Shipping Bill on safe working practices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised a question about the National Trawler Health and Safety Committee Recommendation No. 83. This question was discussed briefly with both sides of the industry soon after the publication of the Holland-Martin Report. It was the general opinion of both sides of the industry that the safety committees in the ports were working well and there was probably no need to set up a co-ordinating committee. However, no final decision has been taken, and the matter can always be considered further.
The House will agree that the Holland-Martin Committee has shown us the way to achieve greater safety with its comprehensive and far-reaching report. This is concerned not only with the more obvious matters directly affecting safety, such as the design of the ships, but also with matters affecting the quality of the industry and the environment that it provides for the men working in it. Indeed, the report stresses that all its recommendations should be taken together if a satisfactory standard of safety is to be achieved.
If this is done, and the recommendations are put into effect conscientiously, I believe that we can hope to see a change in the whole atmosphere of the industry.
We should see not only a safer industry, but also a more contented and efficient industry, better able to meet the competition that it faces from the fishing fleets of Europe.
This hopeful prospect depends to a great extent on the willingness of those in the industry themselves to make changes. I believe that the willingness is there, and so far as it lies in our power we on the Government side will try to ensure that the impetus given by the Holland-Martin Report is not lost.
Of course these changes cannot all be achieved without cost. Even though the final result may be a more efficient and profitable industry meeting the cost during the initial years will be a problem. In particular, compliance with the regulations that will eventually be made under this Bill, and also under the Merchant Shipping Bill, will undoubtedly add to the costs which the fishing industry has to bear; and the Government are conscious of this.
Many of these costs will arise on capital account and will qualify for grant-aid in the same way as any other improvements to fishing vessels. This answers the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) under the current support arrangements at the rate of 35 per cent. for deep sea vessels and 40 per cent. for the others. These rates apply equally to the construction of new vessels so that added costs of this kind will receive the same treatment.
To an extent also the measures will affect operating costs. Here again, under the present deep-sea subsidy arrangements these extra costs will be automatically taken into account in arriving at the total operating subsidy to be paid in each period. The inshore subsidy arrangements are somewhat different, since they do not provide for an automatic adjustment of rates. Rates are, however, reviewed annually and any increased costs arising in respect of safety measures will be taken into account in the same way as all other factors affecting the profitability of the fleet.
We recognise that the full and immediate implementation of all the Holland-Martin recommendations would nevertheless leave a heavy burden to be shouldered by the industry, although until the content of the various rules

and regulations yet to be made is known it is difficult to get a very clear view of its magnitude. Most hon. Members will agree with this. To guess at it would not help us much.
Timing will be an important factor influencing the cost of such new requirements as the Board of Trade may impose under this Bill for the safe construction of fishing vessels. New ships should not raise many problems, but applying similar standards to existing vessels could be a much more difficult matter and the cost of the necessary alterations could be substantial.
Thus there are likely to be difficult decisions to take in individual cases, balancing safety, the cost of alterations, and the remaining useful life of the ship. In some cases it may be reasonable to exempt certain ships from some of the requirements as permitted under Clause 1(2), and simultaneously restrict the ship's operation in some way—for example, by not allowing it to operate in the most hazardous sea areas in the winter. There may even be some cases in which the only sensible and economic course is to withdraw the vessel from fishing altogether. That is some reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon).
Obviously these problems cannot all be solved at once. To avoid any disruption of supplies, the Board of Trade will have to take into account the rate at which new ships are likely to enter the fleet and phase a programme of improving existing ships accordingly. This will demand close consultation with the industry.
It is the Board of Trade's normal practice in regulating the safety of merchant ships to arrange full consultation with both sides of the industry, and the same practice will be applied in this case. Indeed, this process has already started, and discussions on various technical matters are in train.
I assure the House that there should be no fear that new regulations will be suddenly proposed without warning. However, in view of the concern which hon. Members have expressed on this point, my right hon. Friend is ready to add a provision to the Bill making it mandatory, before introducing regulations, to consult the representatives of


those in the industry who would be affected by them. This provision would be similar in form to Clause 94(2) of the Merchant Shipping Bill. It would give statutory force to what is in any case the Board of Trade's intention.
I should now like to say a word about the inshore fishermen. They have not been brought into the public eye by spectacular and tragic losses such as afflicted the deep-sea industry two years ago, and which have afflicted the industry for many years before that. One had only to listen to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade instancing cases over the years to see that a big price has had to be paid. They may not face the icing hazards of the Iceland fishing grounds in winter, but the seas around our coasts can be violent, and the inshore fisherman does not have the comparative comfort and protection of a large, modern stern-trawler.
This is why the Board of Trade proposes, once regulations for the deep-sea fleet have been put into effect, to consider to what extent similar protection should be extended to inshore fishermen.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Has anyone made an estimate of the timetable for that?

Mr. Hoy: No; until we get a complete record of all that has to be done it would be impossible to make a forecast of any kind. I have given the assurance that once the Board of Trade has dealt with this it will be extended to inshore fishermen.
The Board's staff will need to consider all the factors affecting the safety of the smaller vessels before deciding what

safety provisions would be appropriate for them; such decisions will be taken only in full consultation with those affected in the industry and, as with the deep-sea fleet, the cost will be an important factor to be taken into account.
There has been much talk of cost, and I have had to say something about it; we have to recognise that it will be little use making the industry safe if it ceases to be profitable. But profitability can be bought at too high a price in men's lives and the time has come to bring that price down; I believe that in providing the Board of Trade with powers sought in this Bill we shall be opening the way for some real progress in that direction. Because of that I feel it a great honour and privilege to be given the opportunity of saying these few words in support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — FISHING VESSELS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the safety of fishing vessels, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade under that Act; and
(2) the payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Orders of the Day — RATE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)

6.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.
The Order increases the amounts of rate support grant which were prescribed for the two years 1969–70 and 1970–71 by the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1969. The Order also makes minor changes in the formulae by which grant is distributed, formulae which were also prescribed by the 1969 Order. The provisions of the Order, and the underlying considerations, are explained in House of Commons Paper No. 124.
For the two-year period from May, 1969 to May, 1971—the second period of rate support grant—the aggregate amounts of grant were fixed at £182·22 million for 1969–70 and £194·63 million for 1970–71. Provision for this was debated in the House about a year ago, when my right hon. Friend explained that the aggregate amounts of grant represented 64½ per cent. and 65½ per cent. of estimated local authority revenue expenditure for those two years, and 62½ per cent. and 63½ per cent. for the two previous years. This estimate of revenue expenditure, £637 million over the two years, was reached in the light both of the information supplied by local authorities and of the guide lines laid down by the Government for expenditure and growth of expenditure in the public sector. Also, of course, the estimate was based on the level of prices, wages and incomes prevailing about the end of 1968.
During 1969 the cost of operating local authority services was affected by a number of price changes, and by wages or salary awards to different categories of local authority employees. At the end of September there was a wages award for manual workers. From 1st August there was an increase of salary for the administrative, professional and technical classes of local authority employees. There was a pay award for teachers with effect from April, 1969. These three awards are estimated to have the direct effect of adding £6·2 million to local authority revenue expenditure in 1969–

70, and the full year effect of about £8¾1: million is felt in 1970–71. There are, of course, further consequential increases, such as the employer's share of superannuation payments related to increased wage or salary levels. Other awards of increased pay or allowances have been announced, affecting most categories of local authority employment. After careful consideration of the terms and effects of different pay awards, we estimate that staff costs are increased by nearly £9 million in 1969–70 and by about £l2¾ million in 1970–71. Higher staff costs are in fact the largest single item in the list of changes which have affected the estimate of local authority expenditure in this grant period.
Debt service is another large item of current expenditure, and the high rates of interest at which local authorities have had to borrow and reborrow during the year are expected to increase this expenditure by about £3·8 million in 1969–70 and nearly £4½ million in 1970–71. There are also increases in the cost of maintaining local authority buildings such as offices and schools, and of the wide range of goods and services which they have to buy. The resulting increase in expenditure is estimated at about £5£ million, but the higher cost of services will be reflected in the charges and other contributions which local authorities will receive, and off-setting income from these sources should be about £2·6 million higher in a full year.
These estimates of increased costs are based on information supplied by the local authorities and discussed and considered with them in the light of carefully gathered data about general movements of prices and costs, the composition of expenditure and, of course, the terms of particular pay awards. As a result we are satisfied that the reckon-able expenditure on local authority rate fund services expenditure will be altogether some £326 million in 1969–70 and £346 million in 1970–71. That is, an increase of £16 million in the first year and £20 million in the second year over and above the estimates on which the main order was based. The Government intends that the present standard of local authority services should be maintained, and allowed to grow at the rate previously envisaged. Accordingly, the increase Order steps up the aggregate of rate


support grant so that the Government contribution to local expenditure remains at the designated levels of 64½ per cent. and 65½ per cent.
For the year 1969–70 this means that the total amount of rate support grant is increased by £9·8 million to just over £192 million. For the year 1970–71 the total amount of rate support grant is increased by £12.7 million, from £194·6 to £207·3 million. The House is asked to approve the taking of powers to make these additional payments to local authorities.
Of the additional grant, about £120,000 will be distributed as domestic element, which is used to reduce the rates poundage local authorities would otherwise require to levy on dwelling houses. The increase of domestic element does not change the effect on householders—equivalent to a rate reduction of 2s. 6d. in the £ in 1969–70 and 3s. 4d. in the £ in 1970–71—but is applied to adjust the amount of this element to allow for new estimates of domestic rateable value.
For distribution of the balance, the grant increase is divided between the resources element and the needs element in the same proportion as in the main order; three-quarters as needs element and one-quarter as resources element. These are the three channels of rate support—through the domestic element to relieve the private householder, through the resources element to assist those authorities with below-average rateable resources, and through the needs element to give assistance in proportion to population as weighted for such factors as the number of children below school age, the proportion of elderly persons, roads mileage relative to population, rate of population change and relative urban or rural distribution of population.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian) rose

Dr. Mahon: If I may finish first. My hon. Friend has had the advantage, as have many hon. Members, of having a very lengthy letter dealing with an individual point concerning the people of West Lothian. I am certain that he would like me to comment on that at the end of the debate. I would like to explain the main burden of the position

before going into details as to how it affects particular counties.
These weightings, of course, adapt the distribution of grant in some degree to the different needs which different local authorities have to meet, or in the case of the sparsity weightings to the high unit costs of providing almost all services in remote areas.
When we debated the main Order for the current grant period in this House on 20th February last year my right hon. Friend explained that changes were being made by the Order in the arrangements for distributing the resources element and the needs element which had been reviewed by representatives of the local authorities in association with officers of his Departments during 1968.
The most important of these changes was to take out of the calculation of weighted population for purposes of the resources element the weightings for children under 15, and for sparsity, which had survived till then from the days when support for local authority services was by direct percentage grants. Increased weightings for "education units" replaced the under-15 weightings and greatly increased weightings for sparsity were given in the needs element to compensate the authorities which lost the corresponding weighting on the resources element.
My right hon. Friend explained to the House that, although these changes were generally recognised as an improvement, they were not entirely satisfactory and the review of the arrangements was to continue, with special reference to the distribution of the roads portion of the needs element which was not considered in 1968. Temporary arrangements were made for one year to limit the maximum increase in rates for any authority as a result of the formula changes to ls. by paying transitional grants amounting in all to £113,000. The cost of this was borne by all authorities proportionately. The authorities assisted in this way were the small burghs of Annan, Lerwick, Fort William and Kingussie, and the County Council of Inverness. We did not provide for transitional payments in 1970–71 because we intended to remove the need for them and this is achieved by the improvements of grant distribution which are introduced by this Order.
We have decided to modify the formulae used for distribution of the


needs element, and the changes are explained in Part C of the report. They are quite straightforward. They comprise, firstly, an increase of the roads portion of needs element—with weightings where the roads mileage is high in relation to population, which is a reference to my hon. Friend and the reply he has received from the Minister. Secondly there is some scaling down of sparsity weightings for the general portion of needs element.
For rural counties such as Inverness, Perth and Dumfries this means more grant payable as roads portion, but less grant payable as general portion because the sparsity weightings are reduced. The result is to assist these county authorities and through them their small burghs, but not their large burghs, for the large burghs do not share the county roads portion but they do share the general portion. The unintentional result of last year's Order was that for 1969–70 a few of the burgh authorities were too generously treated, at the expense of landwards areas and small burghs. For the year 1970–71 the new formula goes most of the way to correct this.
The four cities and most large burghs are not affected by the formula changes incorporated in the Order. There are incidental changes in grant entitlement for a number of counties, and some of those affected might consider that the changes go in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, every grant change cannot be an increase, and in this large and complex grant system it is impossible to manipulate one part without producing effects in another part, but we have consulted the local authority associations and the new formulae are generally accepted by the county councils as bringing an all-round improvement, correcting a localised and specific defect in the mechanism of grant distribution.
It is a necessary, though not perhaps desirable, consequence of the present grant system and of the "constant prices" assumption on which public expenditure is planned, that a very large and diverse body of local authority expenditure has to be revalued each year. We have been greatly assisted in carrying out the 1969 revaluation by the detailed analysis of expenditure on each service which local authorities have been supplying since 1968, in their out-turn statements for the

last completed year. I know, and so does my noble Friend and the Secretary of State, that this has involved, particularly at the start, much extra work for the chief finance officers of local authorities and their staffs, and it is right that in introducing this Order I should put on record the value both for central and for local government of the information which this hard work has produced.
I commend the Order, and I will seek to reply to detailed points on any other matters which hon. Gentlemen may seek to raise at the end of the debate, if I may.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I would like to thank the Minister of State for the way in which he has introduced the Order and the explanations he has given. These Orders are not easy to understand, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the figures and the way in which he has described the distribution of the increase in the different ways and between the different elements.
As I said last year, I have to express a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman because in all these questions of distribution, as he said, there are some local authorities which appear to benefit and others which feel that they have been hurt in some way. It was during the debate on the main Order last year that I said it required something like the wisdom of Solomon to be able to distribute this money and keep everyone happy.
I endorse what the Minister of State said about the amount of work done by local authorities and others in contributing towards the work that goes into the preparation of an Order like this. Obviously, it is extremely helpful to have as much information as possible, and what is provided in this Order and to us as individual Members is very helpful in trying to determine whether this money has been fairly distributed.
On these occasions the hon. Gentleman comes to the House and reads out these figures, increases of another £9·8 million in grants for 1969–70 and £12·7 million in 1970–71. The figures trip off his tongue so readily that they give an appearance that the Government are being generous towards local authorities.
Of course, we welcome the amount of money that is being given, but at the same time there are three other matters which we have to take into account.
In the first place, so far as local authorities are concerned—I will refer to what I said in a similar debate a year ago—let us remember that reckonable expenditure which the Government agreed with local authorities, what they have to spend, falls short of what the local authorities themselves believe is necessary for them to carry out the services which we in Parliament have laid upon them. I would remind the House that for the year 1969–70 reckonable expenditure fell £11½ million short of the local authorities' estimate; and for 1970–71, £11 million short of what the local authorities themselves thought was necessary. I would emphasise to the House that these figures are before any cost increases such as we are discussing this evening have been taken into account.
I would remind the Minister of State that many of the cost increases contained in the Order which the Minister has described are a direct result of Government action, a direct result of what the Government themselves have done, and are not matters within the control of the local authorities themselves. Here I instance the interest charges, which are one of the highest single items in this Increases Order which we are debating. We have an increase in interest charges for 1969–70 amounting to £3·81 million and in 1970–71, to £4·47 million. I can only think that many local authorities must be looking back and yearning for those days of Tory Government when interest rates were not as high as they are today.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that interest charges are high all over the world? Is he suggesting that the Government have caused that, as well?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am suggesting that the Government are to a great extent responsible for the high interest charges from which this country is suffering at the present time. It is certainly not the fault of local authorities. It is something which the Socialist Government have imposed upon them.
A third point I want to make which the Minister of State must bear in mind is that many extensions of services have taken place in the course of the year which are not covered by this Order. Only the extra costs are covered. I understand, for example, that in the estimates for running the new social work departments local authorities' actual costs are running out very much higher than was envisaged when we discussed what the reckonable expenditure should be. These are not covered by this Order, and that is an item which local authorities are unable to recoup in an interim period in any way at all.
Whilst I welcome the fact that the Government recognise that these increases have taken place, and accept that these have been agreed with representatives of local authorities, and recognise also that the Government met in 1969–70 64½ per cent. and in 1970–71 65½ per cent. of these increases, the remainder of these increases—roughly 35–36 per cent.—has to be borne by local authorities them selves and by the ratepayers.
There are one or two specific questions I would like to ask the Minister, which he has said he will answer at the end of the debate. First or all, in relation to the increases in costs of local authorities, as a result of pay awards, the Minister of State made reference to a specific pay award which took place last year. I would ask the Minister up to what date these pay awards have been taken into account. We all know that there are pay awards under discussion at the moment in relation to teachers and that a nurses pay award has been agreed within the last few weeks. Are these most recent pay awards taken into account in the estimate of increases in reckonable expenditure this year and next, or have these items that are still not completely finalised not been estimated at all?
It would be helpful to know, because increases of £7 million in the first year and over £10 million in the second year are very big items and if these more recent, very substantial awards have to be taken into account this will be an increase in expenditure which local authorities will have to face. These may not have been taken into account in this Order.
My second question is in relation to interest charges. Next to increase through


pay awards, these are the biggest single items in the increases that local authorities have had to face. I would ask the Minister of State how he has allocated between different local authorities, and the different interest charges which local authorities have, in the calculation of the increased interest charges. One of our greatest aids in these debates is the Rating Review which is published each year by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers. Unfortunately, this has not yet been published this year, and therefore I have to rely on the figures for 1968–69.
If we look at those figures in relation to the cities, for example, there is quite a range of average borrowing rates which the different local authorities have to face. Aberdeen, for instance, borrows at an average of 5·87 per cent.; Dundee at 6·16. If we look at the large burghs we find that Coatbridge borrows at an average rate of 5·25 per cent. while Kirkcaldy has to borrow at 6·23. If we look at the counties we find an even wider spread of borrowing rates. At one end of the scale there is Peebles, which borrows at an average rate of 4·94, with my own county of Angus, borrowing at 6·25 per cent., at the other end of the scale.
Where interest charges are obviously such a big single major item of these increased costs, how is this increase allocated between different authorities with the different rates of interest charges they have to bear? This is an important point because the policies of different authorities vary. Some borrow on a long-term basis; some have to renew loans more frequently; some have particular projects for which they have to borrow at higher rates. Therefore, the actual burden of interest charges varies considerably in different areas of Scotland. I would like to know how all that is taken into account.
The third specific point I would like to put to the Minister is: are all the increased costs which local authorities have had to face accounted for? I would like to raise just one item which appears in Appendix 2 to this Order, on page 8, in relation to the Registration of Electors. I notice that the increased costs expected are estimated at £1,000 for 1969–70 and £3,000 for 1970–71. Yet in answer to a Parliamentary Question that I put

to the Secretary of State on 4th December last:
What extra costs are being incurred by local authorities following the decision to reduce the voting age to 18; and whether such costs are eligible for grant",
the Secretary of State replied:
This expenditure has been approximately estimated at £50,000 in the first year and £20,000 a year thereafter.
He went on to say:
Expenditure on electoral registration is reckonable for rate support grant"—
and therefore one would expect it to be dealt with in an Order of this nature—
but the total of the grants up to 1970–71 was fixed before the passing of the Act of 1969. As I indicated to the local authority associations in the course of my meeting with them on 24th January, 1969, it is not normal practice to provide for situations of this kind in a subsequent Increase Order".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 792, c. 359–60, 4th December, 1969.]
In other words, here we have one single item of increase which in itself may not be very great but in total to any particular local authority may be as much as about £50,000. It is an increase which, for reasons which the Secretary of State has not explained but which he regards as normal practice, is not taken into account in an Order of this kind, although it is an item which normally comes into reckonable expenditure. It is a considerable item over Scotland as a whole. Why are such items not taken into account? The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that this increase will have to be borne completely by the ratepayers unassisted by the Government.
I turn now to the distribution of needs element. What population figures have been used for this? The element depends very much on population and population densities and so forth. How up to date are the figures? There is some question, for example, of how much the Registrar-General's figures take into account movements of population and of whether some of the sample census figures recently taken are not more accurate. The Scottish Economic Planning Board has made certain estimates, as have others, of population movements. Are these estimates taken into account in determining the distribution of needs element in the rate support grant? This is an important factor. Those of us who come from the remoter areas where population changes take place want to ensure that these


decisions are based on the most up-to-date figures.
There is also an item involved which I cannot follow. It is in relation to payments made to Scottish universities. There is nothing in detail to say just what these are. As a point of information, the House would like to know more about this item.
Although we welcome the assistance the Government give to local authorities in the Order, what is really important at the end of the day is the fact that local authorities and the ratepayers have to face increased costs. The Government take credit for the fact that through meeting nearly two-thirds of the increase in costs they are bearing a substantial part. At the same time, they will recognise that the local authorities have to bear a substantial proportion out of their own rates. In answer to a Parliamentary Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on 19th January, the Secretary of State told us that in 1969–70 the domestic rate, despite the help given through the domestic element of the rate support grant, was reckoned to go up by ls. 4d. in the £ against an increase of 9d. in the previous year. At the same time, it was estimated that the rate on the non-domestic subjects was going up by 2s. 2d. in the £ as against 1s. 7d. in the previous year.
Despite the Government's claim, and despite what is done in this Order, the trend of rates is still remorselessly upward. Despite all the claim for the domestic element, at the end of the day the ordinary householder still has to pay for many of these increases in costs. We welcome what the Government do to help but they should recognise that the ordinary person in Scotland still has to pay heavily for these increased costs.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. George Willis: This Order deals with two things. It provides a calculated amount for the rate support grant for 1969–70 and 1970–71 and it alters the distribution formula which allocates the rate support amongst various local authorities.
I can understand the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) not wishing to discuss the allocation of this grant because, in the

change, his county benefits by £101,000, which is equal to what West Lothian loses. I have no doubt that this means about 7d. or 8d. benefit to the rates in Angus. I can well imagine how the Tories in Angus will claim at the next local elections that their policy has enabled rates to be reduced by 7d. or 8d. They will hail it as a great triumph for Tory rule instead of admitting it for what it is—the generosity of the Labour Government. I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman did not want to discuss that. Why should he? After all, £101,000 is no mean sum in his local authority's accounts.
Part of my constituency, Mussel-burgh, and also Midlothian wish to discuss this matter. For some reason, no special steps have been taken in the Order to bring about changes for the cities, although each of them finds its grant raised slightly under this new redistribution. But Midlothian and Mussel-burgh are put at great disadvantage as a result of the Order.
The distribution formula was last reviewed in 1968, resulting in the Rate Support Grant Order, 1969, which made grant provision for 1969–70 and 1970–71. That review led to a sharp increase in the rate poundage for certain authorities and, as a result, my noble Friend Lord Hughes undertook that the effects of the review would be further examined, with regard specifically to the position of Inverness County, which had been put at a serious disadvantage.
The result of this further review has been that certain of the growth areas are severely penalised. This is particularly true of West Lothian and Midlothian. Other areas penalised include Clackmannan. Stirling and Fife. It is hard to understand why growth areas have to be penalised in order to get this slight adjustment which had to be made in the previous formula.
The White Paper sets out in page 11 the distribution of the needs element of the rate support grant, but unfortunately does not give any comparison with previous years, so that we cannot see, in any of the papers issued by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, what exactly the effects are. Nevertheless, for Midlothian the effect is that it will lose £91,000, while Musselburgh, in my constituency,


a progressive, efficient, forward-looking local authority, suffers a loss of nearly £13,000. Is it the penalty for being a good local authority that it has its rates increased by about 7d. or 8d.? There is something wrong about that.
Similarly, Midlothian has been one of the most forward-looking local authorities in Scotland. Years ago, it began making provision for the expected transfer of miners and others from Lanarkshire, and when that process did not quite come about as expected, it continued looking ahead as a growth area. In the provision of housing and other social services which make up a community it has been well in advance. In education it has also been well ahead. But now it find itself suddenly losing £91,000, equivalent, I believe, to about 5d. or 6d. on the rates.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State rather brushed aside the changes in the distribution formula. He said that one or two minor changes are embraced in it. I do not know whether he wanted to dampen the flames of anger at the beginning of the debate in that way, but certainly I cannot accept that these are minor changes. These are very serious changes for these growth areas which themselves fought the changes when the working party considered these proposals.
The working party makes a number of points about factors which should have been considered and ought to be considered and have not been considered, for example the alteration in the roads formula. Under the distribution formula now a mile of growth area road, which might be a six-lane road, does not receive any more credit than a mile of narrow two-lane road anywhere else. That seems to be grossly unfair, because there is a big difference between being financially responsible for a two-lane road or partly financially responsible for a six-lane road. This is one of the big differences, and no allowance has been made in this formula for it. The effect of the proposals in this Order is to remove any relationship between the roads element and the rate support grant and the previous percentage roads grants which it was specifically designed to replace.

Mr. John Brewis: I was confused by the example given by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) of a six-lane road. Would

that not be a principal road and would not the money for that come from some other source?

Mr. Willis: That might be, but only if it counts as a trunk road. I am dealing with the relationship between the road element and the rate support grant. While the total roads portion of grant increased, Midlothian's share drops in amount in the new proposals. Midlothian is a growing county and it is also one which surrounds Edinburgh and has a large number of important roads running through it from all directions except the north.
The working party also points out that in the assessment made of the effectivness of the formula and the proposed changes, account has not been taken of any expenditure on sewerage. This is very important in those areas, and Midlothian, in co-operation with West Lothian, has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on a large new sewerage scheme. But no account has been taken of this, and obviously in a growing area it is an increasingly expensive and important matter.
The "in" word now is pollution. Everyone has suddenly discovered pollution and that we are destroying our environment because we are not disposing of refuse in the proper way. Yet it is precisely at this time that we find that the formula does not take account of this expenditure. It is very large in growth areas, and certainly over the country as a whole it is substantially greater than many of the services whose costs are taken account of in the assessments. That is quite clear.
Looking at the way in which the educational units are calculated, the working party also makes the point that the credit given for educational units is given only in respect of places which are occupied in schools. In Livingston and other places with new towns, schools are provided and sometimes places are empty for quite a time until the population builds up and occupies them. This is also unfair and none of these matters is taken account of in this new formula. These are all criticisms of the new formula. Some of these factors should have been taken into account and if they had been then the result for the growth areas in Scotland might have been more favourable than it has proved to be.


Midlothian argues—and I have a certain sympathy with the argument—that it is difficult to know what to do at this stage, because one cannot oppose the Order otherwise one would not get any money at all and Midlothian wants the money. But Midlothian argues—supported I understand by West Lothian and by other areas—that the transitional arrangements made with respect to the previous formula should have continued for another year until there had been a much fuller examination of all the points that should be taken into account. Had this been done the result might have been much more equitable than it has turned out to be. This proposal has been made and I certainly hope that sooner or later the working party will consider the formula again.
It should consider it again and take account of some of the factors which I have mentioned. I have no doubt that the various financial experts on the working party could probably think of other matters. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns mentioned one or two which he thought should be taken into consideration—or at least he asked questions about the interest rates, and so on. Certainly there are a number of matters which should be taken into consideration. I should like to think that it might have been possible to do something about the Order. However, my experience of administration suggests that it is hardly possible, so I should like to ask for the next best thing. I ask my hon. Friend to undertake that the matter will be reconsidered and that some of the factors I have mentioned will be looked at and the formula for the distribution of this grant examined with a view to making the distribution of the grant much more equitable with a formula which takes account of a considerable number of matters which are not at present taken into account.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith) the Minister of State, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) have all paid tribute to the members of the working party in the job that they have done in advising the Government on the way that things should be done. My hon. Friend the Member for

North Angus and Mearns also mentioned his own local authority, and I should like to pay my tribute to my local authority for the help it has given me. With the greatest respect to both my hon. Friend and the Minister of State, I find that I can understand things produced by my own county treasurer far more clearly than things produced by either Front Bench.
Be that as it may, I welcome the result of this review in that the county of Banff is better off by about £16,000. Admittedly, we shall be worse off on the needs element in the general part of the formula because of the change but we shall be better off on the roads element. Every time one of these Orders comes before the House I make the same plea. I acknowledge clearly that the Minister of State has gone a long way towards meeting the difficulties that are found in a county like mine, but, although we are grateful for the small mercy, as I call it, we could naturally do with a lot more. It would be perfectly equitable for us to have more support from the Government and, perhaps, the structure of the formula can be looked at once more. The right hon. Gentleman referred to this, and I take up that point, too.
The difficulty that I face in my constituency is somewhat different from that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It is that the landward portion of the population is less than 50 per cent. A comparison may be made with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns because, after all, we represent two similar types of area. My hon. Friend's county benefits a great deal more than mine because he does not have the number of small burghs which I have, whose populations do not count in the respect that I have mentioned. I make no apology for returning to this, and I hope that the Government will bear it in mind yet again in the next round of negotiations.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in his submissions on behalf of Midlothian County. I should have adopted the same arguments in challenging the Order tonight if it had been possible to do so. I think that we would have challenged it, because it means so


much to the County of Midlothian, but, as my hon. Friend said, if we challenge the Order no money will be available. I hope that the Minister of State will pay heed to what my right hon. Friend said, and to what this Order means.
I do not want to deal with the points made by my right hon. Friend, but one rather significant fact which emerges from an examination of the re-appraisal which the Government have made of the formula is that they have put the new towns in the growth areas in a rather ridiculous position. The Government continue to appeal to local authorities in the new towns to build schools in advance of the arrival of school populations, but this formula means that credit for educational units is given only in respect of places occupied in schools.
I have had letters from angry constituents, particularly in the new town of Livingston, protesting that school places are vacant, and I have had to reply, "This is a calculated policy of the Government. You cannot wait until the school population arrives and then take the decision to build schools". The Government are making their policy look ridiculous, because they are in effect saying that they will penalise a local authority which does what is right and proper and builds schools in advance of the arrival of the school population.
My hon. Friend must be aware that there are sometimes great stresses and strains when a new town is built in an older part of the area. There are complaints by the older part of the county that the new town is getting more than it should, and that everything there is new, while the older parts have to wait for schools, roads, and so on. The very fact that a new town is built means that the infrastructure, too, has to be provided. There must be roads and sewers, but the formula which my hon. Friend is expousing penalises the policy which a local authority has to pursue when it has a new town. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) applauded the Government's change of heart in the calculation of the formula, because it benefits his area at the expense of the growth areas.
My right hon. Friend referred to the impact of this formula on the county. When I consider its impact in the burghs

in my constituency, I find that in Landward it is £56,438; in Bonnyrigg and Lasswade it is £5,030; in Dalkeith it is £6,858; in Loanhead it is £4,324; and in Penicuik it is £5,761.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot be ignorant of the fact that when I mention those burghs I am referring to an area in which the predominant industry—the mining industry—is contracting. At the weekend there was a crisis meeting at one of the collieries. If anything happens there, it will involve sustaining a population of between 6,000 and 7,000, yet the proposition which my hon. Friend is advancing tonight is that the areas which need to attract industry to replace older dying industries should impose heavier rate burdens. I do not know whether this is the proper way to attract industry. This Order has been subjected to great criticism, because when industrialists think about going to an area they look to see what rate burden will be inflicted on them.
I think that my right hon. Friend made a devastating case for the Government to consider this matter afresh. There should be the transitional period. It is not a question of the gross unfairness of the whole system. We are talking in terms of jobs and employment in part of this area. The Government have espoused the policy that the way to solve the unemployment problem is to have growth areas and big industrial units. They say that if there are big industrial units industries are attracted there. Having said that in one breath, they introduce a formula which imposes a substantial rate burden on the areas concerned. There is not consistency in this policy, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should consider this matter seriously and bring forward a proposition which will allow for a transitional period in which this gross injustice to the County of Midlothian and its burghs can be remedied.

7.17 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: After listening to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) one gets the impression that the formula on which the Government are working is grossly unfair. If it is unfair, I hope that the Minister of State will give some explanation how these calculations were made, because one cannot believe that any Government would go out of their way to inflict penal


provisions on a county such as Midlothian. This cannot be what they are intending to do.
I was interested to hear what was said by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I might call him my right hon. constituent. As such he is fairly well placed because, as he said, Edinburgh will not do too badly, but he was speaking vigorously in support of his constituents in Musselburgh who will not do so well.
One thing which puzzles me is how, in the case of Midlothian, there appears to be a smaller, rather than a larger, allocation for roads. With the closure of the border railway line, one would have thought that for this area there would be an increase in what is provided under the heading of roads. I strongly support my hon. Friend who asked what provision had been made for pay increases for teachers and nurses. I should like to know, too, whether any special provision has been made for the commitment by Edinburgh to put its sewerage schemes in order. This amounts to a very considerable sum of money. I gather they will soon be in default of the law if they do not go ahead with the implementation of these schemes. If this has been allowed for I should be very interested to hear about it.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Minister of State will be relieved to know I shall not involve myself in questions about Edinburgh, Midlothian and West Lothian. This is a most interesting discussion. Without being uncharitable to anybody, I think our debate proves that we do not know much about it, about how the calculations are made and the background to the Order. It is true that briefs are supplied, saying that authorities are getting more or are getting less. One can argue whether that is a good or a bad thing. It is simple and easily understood, but there are some points on which the Minister is obliged to give some more information.
One example is the reference to the social work department. Unfortunately in Glasgow this is being made a political football, to some extent, where there is an obsession by some people to keep

the rates down. The point has already been made that the council do not indicate that it is partly because of the generous support the Government have given that the council was able to do that last year. Is this kind of thing taken into consideration? For example, when the estimates for the social work department are being drawn up in any authority, is it quite clear the additional expenditure envisaged—in this case in the year 1970–71—will be covered by the grant involved? To what extent is pressure put on local authorities, or to what extent is it understood by local authorities that this extra expenditure will attract more grants? Is this point covered in the Order we are discussing?
How much of this increase of £9·8 million and, for this year, £12·7 million, is budgeted for the increases in salary which have already been agreed for teachers, nurses and police? This is very important.
I am particularly interested in housing. The Government have always been very generous indeed to Glasgow. This has to be recognised. But are the calculations for Erskine, for example, included in this Order? If the city is saving some money under the arrangement that has been announced, does it mean there will be another recalculation of the grant expected in the city?
What estimate has the Minister made of expenditure that might be included in the "Report for Progress" issued by the Housing Advisory Committee? This is a most important element in local authority expenditure on the amenities in housing schemes. The reason I refer to this is because in my constituency—in Easter-house in particular—a fairly modest scheme of £80,000, where the scheme is only 10 years old, has suffered a cutback to an expenditure of something like £15,000. Within the Department's own estimate this seems to me an area where much more money will be required to be spent if, as the Government have already said, they support broadly the recommendations of that report. Is this the kind of anticipated expenditure included in this Order?
The excuse is being made by too many local authorities that they can do nothing, because they are getting insufficient money from the Government. This is


a most important Order in view of the increased money that is being given, particularly to the domestic ratepayers. What I am concerned about here is the lack of communication by the Government to show the ratepayers how benevolent this Government are. For example, are local authorities required to make quite clear, when announcing the rate poundage or sending rate notices out, that the domestic rate is lower—I believe the figure is now 3s. 4d.—because of a specific Government subsidy? This seems an area worthy of consideration, in the interests of the political health of this Government. Far too many people in local authorities take this fro granted; indeed, so do ratepayers. Many do not even know that the domestic rate is much lower than the commercial or industrial rate. This Order might make it obligatory on local authorities to show the difference and to show where the extra money is coming from. This is an aspect worthy of consideration by the Government.

7.25 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On the last point made by my hon. Friend, we can hardly expect hon. Gentlemen opposite to make it clear to the nation at large that the domestic element is so substantial and that this is entirely due to a new principle of local government finance which we introduced in 1966. The converse of that is that most certainly it falls on my right hon. Friend and myself and all our colleagues to make it quite clear to the people that the domestic element is a new part of rate relief in tis widest sense. Therefore, we ought to be anxious to impress on the general ratepayers that this 3. 4s. is a substantial contribution to offsetting the heavy burden which rates sometimes present to some people.
On the general proposition regarding industrial derating about which we sometimes hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite, it would place us in a very difficult position in Scotland if we were to derate on the same principle as in England and Wales at the present time. It would put Scottish industry at a considerable disadvantage in relation to English industry, and there would be a positive disincentive for industry to move from the south to Scotland.

Sir John Gilmour: Is it not true that the rateable values of the

industries in Scotland are comparable to those in England?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, this it true. It is a very complicated matter. I have heard it said by various persons in commerce that industry—like commerce, which is fully rated—ought to be fully rated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss industrial derating in detail on this Order.

Dr. Mabon: Thank you for bringing me to order, Mr. Speaker, but it was a comparison between the industrial derating and domestic derating which was introduced. Now I have been returned to the path of righteousness, I shall continue.
Another point was made about the position of social work. In the original Order which the Secretary of State promoted last year, my right hon. Friend referred specifically to Section 92 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968. We have discussed this with the authorities concerned. The simple answer to my hon. Friend's question is that we have already allowed in the main Order for the estimated extra costs involved. No authority can offer as an alibi that we have not taken this into account. We have discussed this again and we are convinced the estimate in the original Order was perfectly proper and right. We believe that the work which can be done under the Social Work Act—of which we are very proud—can be done within the overall framework for growth in local authority current expenditure which we described in last year's Order. We make no further provision in this Order. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will tell any authority that wants to evade its responsibilities in this that it is not being fair in claiming that financially it cannot so do.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm it is the case that certain local authorities are finding the work laid upon them through the Social Work Act more than they estimated a year ago when they discussed this with his Department?

Dr. Mabon: That is an assertion by some authorities, but it is not supported by others. The formula has never been a Government formula. Since it began it has always been an agreed formula.
It is not unanimously agreed; no formula ever would be. The hon. Gentleman conceded that, and talked about the wisdom of Solomon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) made a highly indignant speech last year, and I would have done the same, on behalf of the City of Edinburgh.

Mr. Willis: I made a speech that was highly emotional, not in defence of Edinburgh, but pointing out the justice of asking Edinburgh to pay more.

Dr. Mabon: I rephrase what I said. My right hon. Friend made an indignant or emotional speech in those terms. He was protesting, as Edinburgh was entitled to protest, that the formula had worked to its disadvantage.

Mr. Willis: I supported it.

Dr. Mabon: This year my right hon. Friend does not speak up for the city of Edinburgh. I do not deny a constituency Member his right to protest. Members of Parliament are the best Members of Parliament the constituencies have. This time my right hon. Friend objects to Midlothian being the loser. In no formula arrangement can everybody be a winner. It is absolutely impossible. I believe firmly in changing the formula —reviewing it in more detail, not only on every original and main Order, but also at the increase stage. That is why I tried to defend several of the changes to which I shall come later, which have affected Midlothian and West Lothian.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for drawing the Government's attention to the complaints of both counties on that score. He received a letter from my noble Friend the Minister of State today in which we tried to answer some of the points made.
The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) asked about Edinburgh's sewerage scheme. I shall come back to my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian and Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) in a moment, because they raised the principle of sewerage schemes, as did my right hon. Friend. Edinburgh's sewerage scheme will not generate expenditure in the period concerned. The grant was up to 15th May,

1971, and the large sewage purification scheme that Edinburgh has in mind will not generate expenditure until after then.
The last paragraph of the memorandum my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian sent to us referred to the fact that the rate support grant distribution formula takes no account of expenditure on sewerage. But sewerage has always been regarded as a capital-intensive service, and two-thirds of the current expenditure on it is for loan charges. This is the view not only of the Government but of the local authority associations. Their view is that no conceivable grant formula working with objective factors could be produced to take account of local or historical variations in the cost of the service provided by the landward areas of county councils and the councils of all burghs. Perhaps when we reform local government these things will be simpler, but now it is the view of local authorities, as it is ours, that this is not the kind of service that can be taken into account as an objective factor.
Many authorities have accepted burdens in the past on sewerage, and their burdens are less onerous today. Others have been slow in developing their sewerage schemes, and they are the ones that are naturally asking for additional aid now. Those who were progressive in these developments in the past would be the sufferers if we instituted a modification of this kind, and that modification is not accepted.
Let us look at the scandalous and penal effect on Midlothian—the gross effect on poor Midlothian—as a result of the changes. Last year, as a result of the changes we made in the formula, Midlothian as a whole gained 4½d. in the rate poundage. This year it loses 5d., so that the net result in the period is a halfpenny loss. I do not regard that as catastrophic. There were no speeches last year thanking us very much for the 4½d. There were plenty of speeches complaining that other places were losing. We must look at the global effect in any period.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State warned the House last year that we were thinking of reviewing the formula, and I give the pledge tonight that we shall review it again. It is a natural part of local authority life, and


of my right hon. Friend's concern, that the formula, which is not enshrined in Statute, can be changed as we agree from time to time.
Robert the Bruce's spider is well emulated by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker), who constantly makes the same speech and is gradually gaining penny by penny, pound by pound, in changes of the formula. I do not say that everyone should follow him in that regard, but no one can say that he has been ineffective in his speeches on every rate support grant Order since I became a Minister.

Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend knows, I live in a state of eternal gratitude, at any rate as far as the Government are concerned. But could he clarify our minds on one issue? In the determination of the rate support grant, have future populations and other factors, such as incoming industries, been taken into account. According to the treasurer of West Lothian, Mr. Hill, who is one of those excellent members of staff to whom my hon. Friend rightly referred, this has not been so. I should like clarification on that.

Dr. Mabon: That is a very important point. Here, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East was uninformed, which is very uncharacteristic of him, on the principle, though not on the effect. I do not criticise him on that score.
Let me look at the point about changing the formula in respect of roads which was originally argued. The aim was to even out a range of per capita expenditure after direct grant which extended as high as £26 10s. in Sutherland and went as low as £3 1s. 6d. in Clackmannan. The intention was to average out at just under £3. The result of the change in the formula is quite satisfactory to everyone concerned, except apparently Midlothian and West Lothian. Yet in the case of Midlothian the average comes out at £3·12 against a Scottish average of just under £3, and in West Lothian £3·38. I think that that is not bad for a formula, having had some experience of formulae over time and remembering the vast number of authorities we have, with which we have tried to work out a formula equitable to most. We can never be completely equitable to all.
I now turn to the argument about growth points. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian has argued the case not only on behalf of Midlothian but on behalf of other growth areas in Scotland for several years. The case was made particularly strongly in 1968. As a result of that case, we included a weighting for changes in population, introduced for the first time in last year's Order, in distributing the needs element. I agree that my hon. Friend and others can argue that the effect of that weighting is small, but the growth areas now have the principle accepted in the formula and it is up to them to argue how the weighting of that element in the formula should be increased in respect of not only their own areas but growth areas generally.
Mention has been made of Livingstone New Town. The cost to the rates of services supplies for the new town's benefits is regulated by the no-profit, no-loss arrangements between the two county councils and the development corporation, and it does not therefore affect their rates in the same way as similar growth elsewhere—for example, as was proposed near Newton Grange and Mayfield. That would come within the growth factor.
Education is also a matter we have discussed. It is not the view of the majority of authorities that we should take into account anything other than the actual children in the area. This is not a matter in which the Government say to the authorities, "You will do what we tell you". The Government take the general consensus of opinion. It is not a case of a great steamroller of one group of authorities against another. The Association of County Councils has said it is content with the changes—

An Hon. Member: They are all Tories.

Dr. Mabon: That is not fair. They are a mixture. It does not follow that there are not Socialist counties, if one may call them that, which are as dissatisfied as Midlothian and West Lothian.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

Dr. Mahon: Let us not bring party politics into a debate like this.

Mr. Eadie: As my hon. Friend knows, I am a former member of the County Councils Association. Is he seriously


saying to the House that a new town authority should not build schools in advance of the school population, so as to try to fit in with the formula? Surely he would encourage local authorities to build schools in advance of requirements. If the formula is in contradiction to that, it is capable of being amended.

Dr. Mahon: I agree that it is capable of being amended. It may be that my hon. Friend's view is right and that in time the situation will change and people will be converted to that point of view, but at the moment it is not the agreed position. The Government are not willing to come in with a heavy hand and say, "You are wrong; the Eadie doctrine is right". I have enough experience, and so has my hon. Friend, to know that there is no point in trying to thrust upon local authorities a doctrine from which they dissent. Of course my hon. Friend is right in the sense that one must build schools in advance of requirements, but it is not the view of the associations that the formula should be based on that. We cannot force local authorities to accept a formula with which they profoundly disagree.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) asked me several questions which I will answer quickly. Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 refers to Section 75(2) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, and that provides us with the answer to the question on page 6 which he mentioned about the Secretary of State's payments to Scottish universities. Schedule 1 provides that the needs element shall be reduced by the Secretary of State's payments to the Scottish universities under Section 75(2) of the 1962 Act.
Pay awards which are effective up to 30th November 1969, and a few known awards of definite amounts taking effect after that, are allowed for in the Order. All hon. Members will hope that agreement will soon be reached on individual salary scales for Scottish teachers. Whatever settlement is reached, we shall take account of it when the time comes to consider the case for a further increase Order. The figures for teachers' salaries on this Order cover the interim award of £50 per head made last summer and back-dated to April 1969

and the new scale for teachers in further education evening classes, which also took effect on 1st April 1969.
On the interest rates question, the Order takes into account the total capital debt of local authorities on reckonable expenditure and the weighted average of the actual loan fund rates. That is what we have done in the past and it is accepted as being the only functional way of working this complicated matter.
The figures of population which we use each year are drawn from the Registrar-General's estimates of population, and the figure is taken for each local authority area as at the previous June when we are making the calculations.

Mr. Dalyell: The answer to the question by Mr. Hill is that future population is taken into account as per the Registrar-General. Is the same true of likely incoming industry?

Dr. Mabon: Whenever the calculation is made, it is on the Registrar-General's figures for the previous June.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns made two principal points in his opening speech. I was surprised to hear him suggest, in an otherwise competent speech, that the Government were entirely responsible for international interest rates. There are not Socialist Governments all over the world, and this is a matter of deep regret to me. I would hardly claim that President Nixon was a Socialist. There is no doubt that international interest rates are reflected in the British market, which in turn reflects the interest charged by the Government and the Public Works Loan Board. Much as we regret them, interest charges are there as a fact.
The questions which I was asked about housing do not come within the Order, and I cannot respond to them, although I deplore the fact that some authorities are cutting down on housing in order, as they say, to save money. I think that is a penny-wise pound-foolish policy for any authority in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned many times in his speech that the Order falls short of whatever the local authorities ask for. There never has been a time when any Government have given to the local authorities what they asked for. If they did, the most surprised people would be


the local authority associations. They would think that the Government had collapsed or gone stark raving mad to agree to what they had put forward. Of course they come forward knowing that the Government will pare down what they ask for and bring it to a realistic point. I do not think it is fair to say they are short of whatever estimate they have devised. If the hon. Gentleman says that, he is giving a magnificent hostage to fortune, but that may be in a hundred years' time.

Earl of Dalkeith: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer the point about whether provision has been made for teachers' and nurses' pay?

Dr. Mabon: I did answer the noble Lord. I said that all pay awards up to 30th November 1969, and those that we can quantify which take effect after that, are included. As to other arrangements, we shall have to make provision in future increase Orders to take them into account because we do not know what they are.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Rate Support Grant (Increase) (Scotland) Order 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL INJURIES (COLLIERY WORKERS)

7.45 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): I beg to move,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) and I face each other on many occasions on matters of this kind, and I therefore once again welcome him to a debate which involves my Department. I am also glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Technology. I know of his continued interest in the industry in which he worked before coming to the House.
The Order amends the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme which was introduced in 1948 at the request of the coalmining industry. The Scheme has provided supplementary benefit for colliery workers and their dependants who receive benefit under the Industrial Injuries Acts for colliery accidents and diseases. It is administered by a national committee comprising equal numbers of representatives drawn from both sides of the industry and the Scheme's fund has been built up by contributions made from employers and employees only—there has been no charge on the Exchequer or the Industrial Injuries Fund.
Hon. Members may recall that over the past three years several amending Orders have been brought before this House which have had the effect of holding the rates of supplementary benefit paid under the Scheme at the pre-October, 1967, level whilst negotiations about the Scheme's future were under discussion in the industry. These negotiations have been between the employers and unions in the industry and have concerned not only this Scheme but other benefit schemes in the coalmining industry. Hon. Members may also recall that when in November last I brought the last of these "standstill" Orders before the House I indicated that agreement had been reached in principle on substantial changes to the various schemes.
The loose ends have now all been tied up, the detailed amendments to the


various schemes have been drafted, and the agreement as a whole has been ratified by the unions concerned; in the case of the National Union of Mineworkers by a ballot of its areas, and in the case of the National Association of Colliery Over-men, Deputies and Shotfirers by a special delegate conference. The Order is designed to give effect to that agreement as it affects the colliery workers' scheme.
The agreement between the unions and the National Coal Board provides for improvements in the industry's sick pay and pension schemes, and for the future, those who have accidents or contract diseases will rely on the improved benefits of those schemes and not on the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme to supplement the benefits provided by the State scheme. In the main, however, the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme will continue to provide for existing beneficiaries and for those who in future become entitled to its benefits as a result of past accidents.
The Order now before the House therefore amends the Scheme so that accidents occurring or prescribed diseases developing on or after 30th March, 1970, will not be covered by the Scheme—hence no awards of colliery workers' supplementary benefits will arise in respect of such future accidents or diseases. Where the accident occurred or the disease developed before 30th March this year the Order provides that supplementary disablement benefit and the supplementary benefits payable under the Scheme following the death of a colliery worker will continue to be paid at the current rates. But supplementary injury benefit will not be paid after 28th March, 1970.
Because the Scheme will not apply to future cases the agreed amendments provide that the present contributions by the Coal Board, other employers and the workers will cease—the workers will pay increased contributions to the industry's pension schemes. In place of the present contribution arrangements the Order provides for the Coal Board to pay, from 29th March, 1970, £125,000 for each of its " accounting periods "—and there will be 12 accounting periods in any one year —which amounts to about £l½ million a year. This is the amount which the Government Actuary, who is also the Scheme's Actuary, has advised is cur-

rently needed to enable the fund to meet its continuing liabilities to existing beneficiaries. Provision is made, however, for this sum to be replaced by such other sum as the Actuary from time to time may certify is required.
The National Committee's powers to invest the fund are revised so that the Scheme's investment policy is in line with those of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the National Coal Board Staff Superannuation Scheme.
The other amendments in the Order are of a minor character or are a consequence of the changes I have mentioned. As I have indicated, the Order now before the House has been asked for by both sides of the National Committee administering the Scheme and the amendments it makes stem from a comprehensive revision of the coal industry's sick pay and pension schemes agreed following detailed negotiations between the employers and the unions concerned. I commend the Order to the House.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the welcome he gave me. We are constantly encountering each other, and indeed we faced each other in Committee this morning. However, I am always pleased to see him across the Dispatch Box. It is not often that we have the opportunity in this House of discussing an Order which is so universally commended to us by all sides of the industry, and also an Order that will cost us nothing at all. It would be churlish for anybody to oppose such an arrangement.
We are assured in the Explanatory Memorandum that
no part of this fund is derived from the Industrial Injuries Fund or from moneys provided by Parliament.
We are further assured that the agreement has been ratified by the National Union of Mineworkers and by the National Association of Colliery Over-men, Deputies and Shotfirers. And since we also know that the Order has the approval of the National Coal Board, who are we to put up any opposition to it?
There are, however, one or two small questions I should like to ask, which are


not clear to me. Paragraph 3(5) of the Order says, in page 3:
…if any report of the Actuary pursuant to this Article shall have disclosed a surplus or a deficiency in the Fund then in any such case the National Committee shall review the Scheme…
There is almost bound to be either a surplus or a deficiency in the Fund. It is highly unlikely that the Fund will balance exactly every year. This seems to be putting a rather extensive duty on the National Committee to review the scheme every time there is either a surplus or a deficiency. Would the hon. Gentleman comment on that point?
Secondly, I am surprised, although I am sure there is good reason for it, that both sides of the coal industry have agreed to the abolition of the local committees under the Scheme. These local committees in the past have proved very valuable. Instead of sending everything to London, it has been possible to get the answer locally. Yet both sides of the industry seem happy to abandon them. May we have a word of explanation? Are the local committees out of date, have they not been referred to recently, or is it becoming a much more centralised scheme and therefore is reference to the National Committee thought to be sufficient in future?
My last question relates to paragraph 5, in Schedule 1, which sets out the scheme as it will be once the two Houses of Parliament have approved the Order. On page 13, in paragraph 5, one sees that certain payments shall be made not by the Secretary of State but by the National Coal Board
at a rate calculated in accordance with Article 4 hereof.
It is not clear whether the payments shall be made by the Board from these general funds or from the fund created under the Scheme. I imagine that in fact it is from the fund created under the Scheme, but it does not say so. I should be glad to have the reassurance of the Under-Secretary on the point.
My main point relates to the financing of the new Scheme. It is clear from the Memorandum and from what the hon. Gentleman has said that the National Coal Board will pay £1½ million a year in order to meet its obligations to the already existing cases after the present scheme is wound up. This is understand-

able. The existing cases cannot just be abandoned and I have no possible objection to the Board taking this step. But from what I am informed the position is not as simple as that.
Figures I have obtained show that in the last accounting year 1967–68—we do not yet have the 1969 figures—the Board's annual contribution to the Scheme was £3·45 million and the contribution to sick pay schemes amounted to £3·4 million. But when this Scheme is introduced the Board's contribution will be million. as the Under-Secretary has said. It would, therefore, appear that there is a considerable reduction in the obligations of the Board to colliery workers for sickness and injury benefit.
What is not said in the Order or in the Memorandum is that the Board will also have to provide £800,000 a year for what is called the Old Cases Scheme and that their obligation for sick pay will go up from £3·4 million a year in the last accounting year to an estimated £5·4 million in future, that is to say an extra £2 million. The Mineworkers' Pension Scheme will have to meet an extra cost of £250,000 on long-term benefits and for the long-term benefits for under-officials the obligation will amount to an extra £50,000 a year. Thus, the total obligation of the Board under the scheme as now proposed will amount to £8 million per year instead of £l½ million a year indicated both in the Order and in the accompanying memorandum.
Since the existing obligation of the Board is £6·85 million, this will mean an additional expenditure by the Board of £1·15 million, which is not so far away from the£1½ million indicated in the Scheme. But I thought it right to point out that it is not simply a payment by the Board of £1½ million in order to look after the existing cases under the scheme. When the Scheme is wound up, the Board will have considerable additional financial obligations for sick pay and old cases which have not been referred to in the Order. That means, therefore, that the financial position will be somewhat more complicated than has been indicated to us.
With those few observations, I welcome the Order.

8.0 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: This Order will cause to come to


an end in March, 1970, benefits which only the mining industry has enjoyed. No other industry and no other group of workers have had such a scheme. It is one of which the miners have been proud. Time and time again it brought great relief to the miner who was injured.
I would be interested to know a little of the consultations which took place between the miners' representatives and the National Coal Board. Although the State has greatly improved the benefits which are now paid, it is probably because of earnings-related benefits and improvements in the basic scales of industrial injuries benefit that the N.U.M. has been ready to accept the ending of this scheme.
However, under the earnings-related benefits, no payment is made until after the first two weeks of sickness and, after 26 weeks, there is no further payment of earnings-related benefits. Knowing the kind of accidents which miners have, where sometimes they are not able to work for the rest of their lives, it occurs to me to wonder what the National Coal Board has offered to the N.U.M. in order to get the agreement which apparently has been reached between the two sides of the industry.
I can remember having discussions on some other matters, and at that time, as a quid pro quo for certain proposals which the N.C.B. was making, it said that it would put the same money in but would increase the mineworker's pension. For far too long that pension remained at 20s. a week, and those of us who represent mining constituencies were continually having representations made to us about the long delay in improving that pension. It is now 30s. a week, and my hon. Friend has told us in presenting this Order that the National Coal Board will pay extra money for improvements in the sick pay and pension schemes.
Can my hon. Friend say what the improvements will be in the sick pay scheme and the pension scheme? I know that my constituents will want to know that, if they do not already know. So often they come to me at weekends with their questions on these matters. When I report to them this weekend on this Order, I should like to be in a position to tell them what was given by the N.C.B. to get this agreement with the N.U.M. to

end a Scheme for which the miners were always grateful and of which, over the years, they have been extremely proud.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. O'Malley: With the leave of the House, I will reply briefly to the debate.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) asked about the part played by local committees and why the Scheme was being amended in this respect. My understanding is that the local committees have not been required to play any part in the administration of the Scheme for some time past, and so the new draft rules bring the de facto situation up to date.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about the position of the Government Actuary, and he referred the House to paragraph (5) in page 3. The position is a simple one. The National Committee will look at the situation on a running basis. It will seek the advice of the Government Actuary. If he advises the Committee that there is a need for a revision upwards or downwards in the amount of money that it needs, obviously it will consider whether it is necessary to act on that.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked a question arising from the last paragraph on page 13 of the Order. He wanted to know from which source the money will be paid. The answer is that it will be paid from the fund created by the scheme.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman noted that the result of this package deal, involving not only the supplementary benefits scheme but the sick pay scheme and the pension scheme, will result in additional expenditure for the National Coal Board. As he knows, this has been a very complicated and comprehensive package deal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) raised a number of points which I will try and answer briefly. I welcome her to this debate. We all recognise the very significant contribution that she made when she was the Minister responsible for pensions and social security, and I can only answer from my position with a great deal of humility.
My right hon. Friend asked what had been offered by the N.C.B. and what in general terms had been agreed between the Board and the unions concerned. The


position is that, in future, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme will pay pensions to severely disabled men who have to retire from the Board's employment because of incapacity, and a supplementary pension to widows who receive the industrial death benefit. The employee's contribution to the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme is transferred to the Mineworkers Pension Scheme, so that some of the payments made out of the supplementary scheme are now being taken over by what is an expanded pension scheme.
The unions concerned, specifically the N.U.M. and the Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, have agreed with the N.C.B. that there should be an improved wage-related sick pay scheme for all industrial workers, with a longer duration of benefit related to service in the coal industry in place of the present sick pay scheme, which is mainly a flat rate scheme, and the supplementary injury benefit paid under the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme. Basically, this has been a tidying-up operation.
One other feature is that the industry is providing the same benefits for sickness as those provided for industrial injury. The net result of the package and of the agreement has been the transference of some of the functions of this scheme into the pension scheme and the sick pay scheme rather than the supplementary benefits scheme, and generally, because of the expenditure on the pension scheme, there are real improvements for people in the industry. If my right hon. Friend would like details of the Scheme before the weekend—she referred to speaking to her constituents then—I shall be pleased to let her have a copy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment and Consolidation Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ECONOMIC SITUATION, NORTH HUMBERSIDE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

8.11 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I suppose I am in a position in which backbenchers delight. Instead of having to compress my thoughts into a bare 15 minutes with the Minister's pleasure, I might even have 18 or perhaps 20 minutes.
My subject concerns the parlous economic situation on the north bank of the Humber, which is causing anxiety in the City of Kingston upon Hull and adjoining centres such as Hessle and Beverley.
I should like to begin by referring to the B.B.C. programme about the city of Kingston upon Hull a week or two ago, which caused a furore of anger and, indeed, agony, both official and unofficial, in the city.
As the Minister knows, people in Hull work hard, and of course, play hard. We have some good football teams. But the B.B.C. gave far too much of the cloth-cap image of hard swearing and slum housing down at the fish dock. Unfair, unkind and inaccurate is what we thought.
The country's third port and tenth city has fine buildings and beautiful parks. We have our municipal telephone exchange, with cheap calls which the Minister knows about. It has a modern magnificent hospital and a university.
Nevertheless, the B.B.C. highlighted two fundamental handicaps which are imposed upon us by the chill facts of economic geography. Hull and its efficient modern port are isolated and difficult of access because of a totally inadequate communications system. The population is hard working at wage levels below the national average, with fewer chances of getting new, better paid, or skilled jobs in our society. These are the inexorable facts which stand out start in the statistics of employment and employment opportunities. Last month we had a total of 7,378 unemployed, and only 1,337 unfilled vacancies. Therefore, Hull and district has 10 or 12 men for each unfilled vacancy.
I asked the Prime Minister today whether he would visit Hull. It is a fact, which my right hon. Friend well knows, that in Hull and district the unemployment statistics are marginally higher than Merseyside, which is a development area. These are the clear facts in our statistics of unemployment. There is no doubt that the economic seesaw is, and has been, slowly but surely tilting against us since 1966—four years. Our position is far more serious than the vaunted or famed Humber feasibility study unit thought when it looked at our estauary and its activities a short time ago.
To get better access into the city demands an east-west motorway from the A.1 to Gilbersdyke, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who has just come in, at the western exit or entry. We also want the Humber Bridge to link the two banks of the estuary. I should like to take a passing swipe at the Maud Commission—and indeed, perhaps the Government—for recommending that North and South Humberside should be two separate local government units. What other estuary is in this position? Tees, Tyne, Clyde, Mersey? Not one. My experience of history, particularly political history, is that waterways never divide. They unite valleys.
Concerning rail communication, I should like to quote a former Minister of State who, exactly two years ago, said:
A freightliner service to London with one train per day was inaugurated in January, 1968, and its operation has already proved successful. The proposed services to Newcastle, Glasgow and Birmingham should be opened as soon as possible. Traffic between the docks in the east and the freightliner terminal in the west is bound to increase, and, as has been previously pointed out, improved road links between the two by the proposed high level bridge over the River Hull and the South Docks road are vital.
I have spoken to footplate men and others in the transport industry. I have a memo from A.S.L.E.F., which says:
Due to the loss of timber traffic at the docks there are now wide open spaces where a freightliner depot could have been installed in a strategic position to service both Alexandra and King George docks, instead of having to traverse the city from east to west.
We do not understand why this depot was put west of Hull when it should have been placed in the docks on the

east, so that the containers and any other goods could be picked up at once and taken away. The men on the footplate are puzzled why this kind of planning goes on.
Funny things happen in Hull when the B.R.B. begins to move into action. It closes rail lines. The most efficient depot in eastern England, the locomotive depot at Dairycoates, has work taken away to Sheffield and similar spots in west Yorkshire. The sword of Damocles is still poised over us. There is talk—and the unions are very worried about it—of the divisional headquarters being moved from Hull to Doncaster. Indeed, we sometimes feel like Mahomet's coffin —poised between heaven and hell.
But the most ludicrous thing of all is the fabulous old No. 7 warehouse. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) recently asked questions about this warehouse which stands in the path of this east-west road linking the two halves of Hull over the River Hull. This building will fall down when the contractors are driving their road past Myton Gate and over the River Hull into the King Geore V, the Queen Elizabeth and other docks on the east side. It is monstrous to find this ancient relic of the mid-19th century, which is falling down, along with lock gates and lock walls between the Princes Dock and the Humber Dock, listed for preservation by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I am certain that this has been done by some anonymous inspector, most likely influenced by the Georgian Society and the preservationists, if not egged on, perhaps, by the chairman, who is the Tory leader of the city council. The city engineer and many others qualified, like the Docks Board and others, would have this down if allowed—because it stands in the way of what we believe to be the best development of the city.
I hope that the Minister of State will knock some heads together in the Ministries of Transport and Housing, which I understand now go in tandem under a supremo, the distinguished right hon. Member for the south bank constituency of Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). We hope that we shall get some attention and, indeed, some action, although sometimes one is a little worried about the time that it takes to get things done.
I believe that our unemployment statistics would be worse if we took into account distant migration. It is a most disturbing thing that our young people cannot find fit work inside the city and often go a long way away. This is not the usual business of younger executives with cars and better salaries living outside the city in adjoining constituencies: this is distant migration which has not come back to us. The city population is declining in absolute terms. What is disturbing is that our basic industries—fishing is the most obvious case—are also declining in numbers and offering fewer jobs. No city, whatever its past, and however tough it is, can afford to lose this youthful and vigorous element. It leads to a marked social imbalance, as is happening in our city at the moment.
North Humberside, a deep water port with space to expand, is not being exploited to its full potential. The Government keep telling us that there is no substitute for self-help; but no local authority can finance the infrastructure which is so vital to it out of its own moneys. An example is the Humber Bridge. Without Government aid for this, our finances in the city will be difficult. The business community feels that the economy is stagnating. So, should we qualify for development area status? As I said, our unemployment is slightly higher than Merseyside's.
The Local Employment Act, for which we are very grateful, will come into force this weekend. The Minister of State may tell us that the intermediate area incentives for which we then qualify will create about 1,600 jobs, perhaps more, we hope, in our whole area over the next four years. These will be mainly for men. We have few jobs for men and plenty for women, whereas the south bank has plenty of jobs for men and few for women. This is another argument for the Humber Bridge—that these men and women could cross and thus help to balance the two economies.
I would compliment at least two well known firms in my constituency which are expanding against the tide and will benefit by these intermediate area incentives of which the Minister will tell us. They are T. J. Smith and Nephew, a very fine pharmaceuticals firm, and J. Shiphams, a copper firm.
Can I ask the Minister what further applications for i.d.c.s are in the pipeline? Why cannot we have Government-built factories? By the end of the week we shall have our new intermediate area status. Under the 1944 Act, the Labour council purchased some 300 acres cheaply for long-term industrial investment. This could be a gold mine for the city as a Government trading estate.
What about help being given with a few government offices, such as we see in Bootle, that famous "Whitehall of the North", as it was described the other day? We should qualify. We have a fine hinterland with some beautiful hills behind, and we have the sea coast. Humberside is a beautiful place, particularly the north bank. I asked the Minister for the Civil Service on 23rd February about Government offices coming to, Hull, and he said that Hull would be considered along with other areas. I hope that the Minister will think more deeply than that about the question.
I once said in this Chamber on a similar occasion, "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." I hope that we shall see some action and will feel a bit happier on North Humberside in the coming months.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on raising this important subject and thank him for offering me a few moments of his time, which would normally have been restricted with the Minister to half an hour. Since we have got on the Adjournment much earlier than was expected, I might speak rather wider than I had originally intended. I recognise that the Minister has had no notice of what I want to say: indeed, many of the matters which I intend to raise, about communications, do not concern him directly.
The hon. Member said that Hull suffers a fairly high level of unemployment and has suffered it for some years. As a grey area it will now get some assistance. We hope that this will be enough, but I believe that the Minister must keep this continuously under review.
I have two industrial matters to refer to First, shipbuilding firms in Hull are all reasonably small, and the same applies


in Hessle, in my constituency, next door. But they have a very good export record The Minister will know that they are worried about the assistance given to similar firms in development area, which makes it very difficult for them to compete in the export market. I recognise that there is a strong case for attracting firms into a development area, but I know that it is not the Government's intention to create this sort of competition. This is a very difficult question, but the Board of Trade has been reviewing this matter for a long time, and I hope we may be able to resolve it in some way. What is really important is to encourage British firms exporting overseas, especially those which have an established market.
The other issue is the question of effluent disposal. In its wisdom, over the years, the House has passed various pieces of legislation, which we all support in theory, to ensure clean rivers. But what the House has not done to any real degree is calculate the cost of this legislation or to create priorities. I believe that the law today would enable the Humber Estuary to be made a clean estuary—in other words, that firms would be prohibited from discharging their effluent into the estuary. This has not been enforced. If it were, it might create chaos, would certainly cost a great deal, and would put many firms out of business.
This is a matter of importance and I hope the Government will decide on planned priorities, starting with non-tidal rivers and then dealing with tidal rivers and estuaries. This affects Beverley in my constituency, where there is an important tannery in this county town. It is protected by a perpetual agreement and, therefore, has its effluent treated by the local borough council at a nominal cost. The firm has offered a considerable increase voluntarily to the council. Nevertheless, because this problem of sewage disposal has been neglected over the years, and because of the need to dispose of trade effluent, the town will be faced with a scheme costing 1½ million, which is an enormous sum for a relatively small town.
It has occurred to people who have studied this problem that the proposed scheme might be rather lavish for the

scale of the problem. It has been suggested, for example, that if there had been more co-operation among the council, the Government and firm an equally effective but less costly scheme might have been effected to the benefit of the ratepayers, industry and, indirectly, the Government. This problem is still under discussion, and it illustrates a difficulty which should be faced on a national level.
A committee is examining the whole question of sewage and effluent disposal. I hope that it will come up with a national solution because the problem can be tackled only on a national basis. It is not fair to expect a small town to produce an expensive scheme simply because it happens to contain industries which need special facilities for treating effluent.
The most important problem for the Humberside is the question of communications. Given a good port with good water and power facilities and a good hinterland, all of which exist to varying degrees in Northern Humberside, what is basically required to attract industry is good communications.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to the surprise that was caused locally by the recent announcement, given in answer to a Parliamentary Question from me, that the two new motorways, the trans-Pennine highway and the extension of the M.1, will not go right into the city of Kingston upon Hull. They are to stop 10 or 15 miles to the west. This seems to be spoiling the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar.
If we are to construct great motorways from Liverpool to Hull, we might as well finish the job and bring them right into the City. Perhaps the Minister has carried out traffic surveys and will say, as a result, that present traffic demands do not warrant these motorways going through to the city. However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West pointed out the importance of the Humber Bridge, and since the Government have pledged that the bridge will be built—hon. Gentlemen opposite will recall the original pledge given during a certain by-election—and although the Labour Party will not be in office when the bridge comes to be built, it is obvious that the bridge will attract a great deal of traffic which will have to be funnelled off to the north and west.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I agree with the general argument being adduced by the hon. Gentleman. Is his party absolutely committed to the building of a Humber bridge?

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one of the biggest mistakes a politician can make is to commit himself before seeing the books. I have no doubt that when we come to see the books we shall get a shock. Naturally, the whole matter will have to be considered at that time.
It would be foolish for us to follow the example of the Labour Party and, for example, put a ceiling on defence expenditure, such as they have done. That action has got hon. Gentlemen opposite into a lot of trouble in the last five years, not to speak of risking the security of the nation. I must not pursue that tonight, particularly since we shall be debating the matter tomorrow.
A Humber bridge is needed, and it is the Government's intention to prepare the way for it to be built. I hope that, whatever party is in power, the bridge will soon be completed. But it is obviously necessary to ensure adequate access roads and escape routes for the additional traffic that the bridge will generate.
Some of the traffic going over the Humber bridge will want to go north towards York and the Tyne. As things stand, it will have to go through country roads, through Beverley, Driffield and other places in that direction. If we allow 50-ton container lorries to rumble through our countryside roads, those roads will be broken up even faster than they are being smashed by the present volume of traffic.
It is important, therefore, for us to proceed as rapidly as possible with a new Hull-Beverley trunk road. This road was first discussed and planned in 1927. In other words, it was agreed 40 years ago that we needed a new trunk road between Hull and Beverley. Only a few days ago the Minister informed me and the East Riding County Council that he was now prepared to authorise the building of a single carriageway from Hull to Beverley to be combined with the south-west bypass to Beverley. In other words, the Minister is offering the bait of

saying, "If you accept a single carriageway, you will probably get it soon".
My initial reaction to his offer was that after 40 years we should have a proper bypass with a double carriageway as quickly as possible, particularly as famous buildings like the Minster in Beverely are being seriously endangered by the volume of traffic passing through the town.
Having had a chance to review the Minister's remarks and having consulted local opinion, I believe that there is something in his offer of a single carriageway—on the basis that half of what we want will be completed twice as fast—and this is acceptable. I hope that it will be borne in mind that this single carriageway is needed extremely quickly. Unless the preparatory work starts within the next year, I doubt whether the road will be completed in time to take additional traffic from the Humber bridge, if the bridge is completed on schedule. The road is badly needed with or without the bridge.
Good communications is the key to the development of Humberside. Another key is the Humber bridge itself. I have always been worried at the thought of Humberside developing as two separate regions, the old one in the north and the new one in the south. This would be disastrous to both the north and south. Only by constructing a Humber bridge shall we create a Humberside which can be developed as one.
I congratulate the Minister on saving the Hull-Scarborough railway line, and, although I gather that he is paying a great amount of money to do this—I do not know why it should cost so much—I am pleased that it is being kept open. I also congratulate him on licensing air traffic from Brough now that Leconfield has been abandoned by the civil operator. Air traffic is vital these days, and I hope that the Government are thinking in terms of a reasonably sized airfield for the future. I do not urge them to construct an international airport, but it should be a good feeder airfield and the Goole area would seem ideally placed for this purpose. Obviously, Brough will not be suitable for anything but small aircraft because of the big chimneys which have been constructed in that vicinity. Suffice it to hope that the Government are thinking in terms of the


East Riding having a good feeder airfield for the 'seventies and' eighties.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and to the Minister of State for my late arrival in this debate. Like other hon. Members, I thought that we should not be debating this matter until about 10 o'clock. I was attending a meeting elsewhere but I felt that there was no better reason for dragging myself away from it than that I should take part in this debate on questions affecting my constituents and Humberside generally.
It would be wrong if we did not stress, as has been stressed by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), the real problems which face our area. A creeping rise in unemployment is causing us considerable alarm. We are not a development area, and we do not usually have factories suddenly closing, but these things are happening here and there. This is a cause for concern. Although we have not the problems of development districts, we do have problems.
It is absolutely right that people in Hull should realise the significance of what is being done by giving Hull an intermediate status. This means not that we have the problems of the development areas but that the Government have recognised that steps must be taken early to prevent the area having such problems. If the party opposite had taken such steps when hon. Members opposite realised what would happen to the coal industry and other industries, we should not be in this position now. What my right hon. Friends have done is absolutely right, and it is particularly important for Hull.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said, it is important, having got intermediate status, that the people of the area should see that the Government are prepared to take an active interest in Hull. I join with my hon. Friend in urging the Government to look at plans for Government-sponsored factories, and perhaps industries, for North Humberside and the whole area. The sort of fillip which a Government factory could

give to an area such as ours would show that the Government have expectations and hopes. It would encourage local industry to expand and develop on Humberside.
In some ways local industry is perhaps the key to all this. In a Parliamentary answer today it was shown how local industry can apply for I.D.C.s. A letter to Hull M.P.s has shown that we could expect 1,600 new jobs over the next four weeks. This is splendid news, and we want to see this encouraged. We want not intermediate status or development status but a situation in which the Government could regard us as they regard the South-East and not need to give I.D.C.s because the area would then be better off than other areas. We have a long way to go before that situation comes about. Therefore we want advance factories in our area.
We have had a disappointment. One of the most important decisions which could and must be rectified is that Hull has not a polytechnic in its colleges for advanced education. In my constituency there is the Regional College of Art and Architecture, the College of Commerce and the College of Architecture. Soon we are to steal from Kingston upon Hull, West the Nautical College. After all, my hon. Friend now has in his constituency the infirmary which was in mine. On the college campus in terms of organisation, teaching ability and staff we have a fine record. We have every right to claim that we should be granted polytechnic status.
I hope the Minister of State will say that he will urge on the Secretary of State for Education and Science that in the next list of proposed polytechnics Hull will be included because there is a scarcity of polytechnics on the East coast. If we consider Middlesbrough as being on the East coast, we can say that right down to East Anglia there is no polytechnic. Hull is the obvious place for one to be established, not only for the East Riding but also for the south bank of Humberside. As a former teacher in the local college of commerce, I had students coming from as far away as the West Riding. A polytechnic could raise the morale of staffs in those colleges and the status of Hull in the educational and industrial world. It could do an enormous amount of valuable work for industry and the people generally.
We must look at the developments that have come to Hull. Earlier today I said that the Government had set the fishing industry on its feet. The Government, through the I.R.C., have established a new management and company structure for the industry, which will go a long way to improve the ramshackle 19th century higgledy-piggledy organisation. The Government established a minimum price system for the importation of frozen fillets from E.F.T.A. countries; they have introduced legislation to improve the working conditions of the men in the industry. Today we had a most important debate upon a very important Bill. This is wrongly regarded as our primary industry. We now have a diversification of industry, for which we can thank the Government.
There has been considerable investment in freight-liner services, with roll-on roll-off facilities. We had the Queen visiting us last year to open the new extension to the King George Dock, now called the Queen Elizabeth Dock. A considerable amount of money has been pumped into the north bank of the Humber, recognising its importance to the country. Discussions are taking place about the Humber Bridge, and on this subject people in Hull will note carefully that the hon. Member for Haltemprice could not say that if his party was returned to power the Conservatives would pledge themselves to build a Humber Bridge.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I do not speak on behalf of the Opposition on this subject. All I would say is that my party is much more likely to build the bridge than the present Government are.

Mr. McNamara: They must first get office, and if they keep shilly-shallying on issues like this they never will get office. When the hon. Gentleman brings in red herrings, talking about troops East of Suez, he is off the point. The only thing that matters here is that if people have something to sell they will sell it and if we want to buy it we will buy it, and troops East of Suez have nothing to do with that. The hon. Gentleman should know better than to introduce these topics into a debate about our county.
In the 1964 election the only one of the four Hull M.P.s who mentioned the 

importance of the Humber Bridge was my predecessor, the late Henry Solomon. We have had no firm undertaking from the Tory Party that it will build the bridge if it is returned to power. When the Leader of the Opposition came to Humberside, as President of the Board of Trade, the only stops he pulled out were in the organ of Beverley Minster. We never saw any benefit from his visit. The people of Hull have to realise that their council is beating its breast about employment prospects. Yet when the Tories were in power they did not do a thing for us.
I join in the disappointment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West that in publishing their report and their proposals on Maud the Government did not propose the unification of the north and south banks. With the creation of the authorities, with the tremendous reorganisation in the various services, and with the time scale of the bridge from 1972–76, all the authorities on both banks could be working together for the creation of a unitary authority with the opening of the bridge.
We should then have the benefits of communication between both banks, Which would be tremendously important, and the benefits which each bank could give to the other in terms of job opportunity and the advanced and highly sophisticated social and educational services which the Labour Council in Hull has created. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning, who I am glad to see is now with us, to think again on this question.
In many ways much of the impetus must come locally. The Government can do much. They can give us intermediate status. They can push capital into the publicly-owned industries, as they have done. But basically the local authority and the people in the area must themselves endeavour to broadcast the advantages of industry coming to Hull.
There are many great advantages. Hull is situated in very beautiful countryside—the Wolds of Yorkshire. Close at hand are very attractive holiday resorts. Thanks to this Government, there is a good train line to Filey and Scarborough. There are very good education facilities. There are very beautiful facilities and


buildings in the area. We have a council which is concerned with our local theatre. The new voluntary organisation is successfully running our art centre in my division. We have a university. We have all the attributes which many cities want to have.
Despite all the efforts which have been made in Hull in the past, we can still do more. Coupled with what the Government have done, we can do much to create our own salvation. Unemployment is our immediate and main concern. Despite some of the bad publicity our city has had recently, by selling its advantages and showing what a unique position it holds we could do much from within our own county, in partnership with the Government, to overcome many of the evils.

8.52 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. Eric Varley): This has been a short and useful debate on the problems of an area with which I am already well acquainted, not only through the Ministry of Technology regional office, but also through the effective advocacy of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).
Also, I get very able assistance in these matters from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning who is here with us on the Front Bench. I know that he has extensive knowledge of this area. We co-operate very closely on the question of regional industrial development.
The House has been giving the regions a good deal of attention in recent months. We have had a number of constructive debates, and only last Thursday the new Local Employment Act received the Royal Assent. When it comes into force this week we shall be able to extend assistance to a number of new areas, North Humberside amongst them, where the rate of economic development ought now to gather greater impetus. It is right that we should take time to air the problems of the regions. Planning for the best use of regional resources and for the

narowing of regional disparities is an important part of management of the national economy. But our success in establishing the economies of the less prosperous areas on a sounder footing depends in the long run on the achievement of a sound basis for economic growth in the national economy, national economic prosperity, and, of course, on a stable surplus on our balance of payments.
I thought that the hon. Member for Haltemprice injected a party note when he said earlier in the debate that the Opposition, if they ever got a chance, would want to see the books. Well, in 1964 we got an opportunity to see the books. They were in a pretty disastrous state at that time, and if the Opposition should ever have an opportunity to look at the books within the next 12 months they will find them in a much sounder and healtheir state than they were when we took over.
Now that we have moved into surplus it would be very easy to succumb to the temptation to relax too soon some of the rigorous and often painful measures we have had to take. These measures can now be seen to be working, but we must ensure that our overall economic strength brings with it greater strength for all areas and regions in the country. We must make sure that we build firmly on our economic strength so that long-term employment prospects remain sound; and the achievement of a sound basis for steady growth must take first priority. The Government have shown over the last five years that they attach very great importance to correcting regional disparities and to helping each region to make full use of its productive resources. We have developed a wide and flexible range of incentives to help the less prosperous areas to overcome their structural and economic weaknesses. We have recognised that the scale of the problems of different areas varies and calls for different levels of assistance; and with the vastly increased flow of information at our disposal we can take account of such factors as population change and employment trends, as well as unemployment, in assessing these needs. We are achieving a growing sophistication in the diagnosis of regional ills, and their treatment, and the long-term prognosis is good.
I accept a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West said tonight. North Humberside is an important national asset. It is a major port and a major community, and, along with South Humberside, its potential as a major national growth area cannot be disputed. It can accommodate population and industry to a very great extent.
My hon. Friend suggested that the Merseyside problem was not quite as bad as the Hull problem. I accept that unemployment on Merseyside is at present marginally lower than in the Hull area, although this is not true of any other development area. Nevertheless, there has been a continuing loss of jobs on Merseyside, notably in the heavy electrical industry and shipbuilding, over the last 12 months. As a consequence unemployment on Merseyside has increased and the problems there appear to us to be very deep-seated. Development area status will have to continue for Merseyside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West also mentioned the question of British Railways' rationalisation proposals and the move of the divisional office to Doncaster. I know that discussions are taking place between the Railways Board and trade unions and that my hon. Friends are also in touch with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on this particular point. I understand that they are to see him soon and I know they will not expect me to go into detail on that. My hon. Friend also mentioned the question of migration. This is one of the factors that led us to designate North Humberside as an intermediate area.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice talked about effluent disposal. I cannot give him an authoritative answer now on that, but I have listened to him about the subject before at a private meeting and I will get in touch with my right hon. Friend and convey to him the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned airport facilities for Humberside. The whole question of airports for Humberside will need to be considered in the long term in the light of decisions about expansion on Humberside. There are a number of alternatives. All of them will

depend in the long run on the commercial prospects of civil air services. The Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council is concerned that Humberside should not lose its air services and has made its views known to the Air Transport Licensing Board and the Government. A proposal for a new intercontinental terminal by 1980 is to be kept under review in the light of the developing air transport situation. Meantime, the local authorities are earmarking a possible site in the Goole area against this contingency. If this materialises, it will be readily accessible to North Humberside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North raised the question of a possible Government factory for Humberside and I will return to that later because we are considering something along these lines. He also referred to the question of a polytechnic. I know he realises that this is not within my responsibility but here, too, I will let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science know of my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and how strongly he feels. My hon. Friend also paid proper tribute to the Government for their support of the fishing industry, and I very much appreciated it.
Last year, the Government, following the publication of the Hunt Report, announced their intention to designate North Humberside as an intermediate area. This decision was taken after very careful consideration of the area's circumstances and against two serious constraints. The first was that the problems of the development areas were generally much more severe than any other part of the country and that they should retain a substantial margin of preference in assistance to industry. The second was that no substantial additional financial resources could be made available at this time.
North Humberside will now have available grants at 25 per cent. for factory building, Government-built factories and the full range of development area training grants and other training assistance, together with assistance for the transfer of key workers. As I have said, my hon. Friend mentioned the question of a Government factory. We are drawing up what we consider to be a modest programme of advance factories for intermediate areas and the needs of the Hull


area will certainly be borne in mind, together with the representations my hon. Friend has made tonight.
Industrial development certificates are now issued freely on the same basis as in development areas. In addition, a capital grant of 75 per cent. is available to local authorities for the clearance of derelict land. Quite apart from this direct assistance, we announced last year that the Humber bridge would be built in time for it to be in service by 1976. Furthermore, substantial improvements are planned for Hull's road links with the West Riding and the main national trunk routes.

Mr. James Johnson: I asked my hon. Friend to say something about the financing of the bridge. I made the point that, although the Government are telling us to help ourselves, it is a bit difficult for local authorities to finance all their infrastructure.

Mr. Varley: I cannot give an absolute and authoritative assurance now, but I can tell my hon. Friend that part of the withdrawal of the S.E.P. from the development areas to finance the intermediate area programme will be used for infrastructure and part will probably be used for some of the roads in the Humberside area.

Mr. McNamara: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the bridge, would he care to comment on the fact that the Opposition will not categorically say that they will build a bridge?

Mr. Varley: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North dealt very effectively with that. It is rather strange that we have not had a statement from the Opposition on this matter. We get all sorts of statements on a whole range of subjects, and it is a pity that they cannot say something about this. I am sure that people in Hull will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. James Johnson: Would my hon. Friend accept that the Opposition are unlikely to win the next General Election and therefore it is a hypothetical conjecture?

Mr. Varley: Absolutely. On the question of the bridge, perhaps I did not deal

completely with the point raised by my hon. Friend. As I understand it, part of the withdrawal of the selective employment premium will be used for financing the Humber bridge, but perhaps if I am not absolutely correct on that I can drop my hon. Friend a note in order that it should be absolutely clear. The bridge will clearly have a fundamental effect on both banks of the Humber. It should in time lead to the development of north and south Humber as a single economic and social unit and the services and facilities of Hull will be opened up to the communities on the south bank—particularly Scunthorpe, where there is development taking place now in the steel industry, and Grimsby with its central area reorganisation under way. The adjoining resort of Cleethorpes should benefit from the increase of visitors from the north bank. Therefore, over the next few years we shall have taken big steps towards overcoming the area's disadvantages for industrial development—its remoteness and the divisive effect of the Humber estuary. These are firm decisions which industry can take into account now.
It has been put to us that we should be doing even more for North Humberside. I think it would be unreasonable to assume that the measures which we are taking will be inadequate even before the Local Employment Act, 1970, has come into force.
The measures we have chosen are directly linked to the provision of new jobs and are those most likely to have a direct impact on employment. Sixteen hundred jobs—the great majority for men—are already expected to arise from new industrial building over the next four years and with the incentives now available the rate at which new jobs are created should increase. Already we have received 23 provisional applications for building grant for projects in North Humberside. Time will show whether we have got the balance right. The new intermediate areas have been selected on the strict criteria of need and the measures carefully chosen to make the greatest impact with the limited resources available.
I am confident that we shall be successful in attracting new industries to North Humberside, but this can only be achieved over a period. It is the Government's


job to try to create the conditions in which industry can flourish and be competitive; to help all parts of the country to make the most of their resources and their full contribution to national prosperity. But it is for industry to provide jobs and opportunities also. Indeed projects cannot be planned, launched and manned overnight. The supply of mobile industry is limited and the Government must hold the balance between the needs of different parts of the country through the operation of their I.D.C. control and the application of their incentives.
We shall be watching the progress on Humberside and the impact of our measures very closely. I am confident that the help we are giving to them, to-

gether with the bridge and the improved road links, will greatly increase the attractiveness of the area to new industry and that we shall be successful in overcoming the problems now besetting the area.
My hon. Friend has done a service to his constituents and to the whole of Humberside by raising this important subject this evening. From my point of view, and consistent with my obligations to other areas of Britain, I shall do all that I can to assist him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.